Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Repairman

Regulars
  • Posts

    780
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    33

Everything posted by Repairman

  1. Well, if you consider waging war over three continents "non-violent", we may have very different standards of semantics. But enough about Napoleon or Lorenzo Medici, I understood this to be a thread about a hypothetical heir of a hypothetical dictatorship. More specifically, an heir that more than likely does not share the same ideas as his predecessor(s). The application of some degree of ruthlessness and guile would be necessary as means of survival for such "prince." Call it what you like. Inasmuch as we have not outlined any specifics of this dictatorship scenario, there are only a few generalizations that apply. 1) Power is concentrated at the top, perhaps shared by a few other elements, but not necessarily so. 2) We could assume that the common masses have been treated as children, or subjects to their sovereign leader, perhaps cowered into submission, but not necessarily so. Herein lies the complexity: How to transition power from absolutism to rule of proper law, when so many powerful and corrupt elements would take advantage the situation. And the people kept ignorant for generations would have no idea as to how to conduct their lives as free man and women. It would make a Shakespearean epic, but having only read a little Shakespeare, I suppose I may prepare for a correction for my use of the term. Or it could be a very short story of abdication, the prince preferring to go fishing in a friendly country, rather than risk his neck. But I would like to think that someone with the genius and sense of purpose as John Galt would figure out a way to lead his people out of darkness, and establish the necessary institutes for a free-market economy and an intellectually free people. Call me an incurable but cautious optimist. I appreciate StrictlyLogical's ideals, but we are talking about a dictatorship after all.
  2. And yet it happens frequently. The dictators of the Age of Antiquity and Middle Ages were mostly followed by an heir. In modern times, Fidel Castro successfully transferred power to his brother, Hafez Al-Assad's son rules; Napoleon, Saddam Hussein, Hosni Mubarak were not so successful at establishing dynastic powers, although it was their intent. Quasi-monarchical traditions are quire common among tyrants. Yeah, I read The Prince a few years ago. Is this a thread about Niccolo Machiavelli?
  3. There's a great deal of truth to this. Being born into a dictatorship poses a bit of conundrum for everyone under its influence, from the highest to the lowest. Generally, dictatorships lack the institutions of justice and liberty of which we in Western nations take for granted. Corruption is often the norm, institutionalized from the highest to the lowest. Vendettas are common. Machiavellian politics would likely result in usurpers overthrowing any leader appearing weak and sympathetic to liberal reforms. Stability is the primary objective for any nation with a history of violent factional or tribal conflict. What to do if one were an enlightened man born to rule such a nation? If it were me, I would do everything possible to secure my own preservation. A loyal ally among the security forces, one willing to accept the ideological changes, would be absolutely necessary. And it wouldn't hurt to have a backup plan for living in exile. 2. As an sort of philosopher-king, I would need to do a great deal of philosophizing in the language of both the higher and lower economic classes. Routine public addresses would be more effective than one three hour long "I am John Galt" speech, public addresses that relate to conditions specific to the nation. I would also need to allow the freedom for public rebuttal. 3. I would begin with a drastic reform of stripping the oligarchs of their monopolistic powers to privatization. I would need to know just how backward this hypothetical nation is in order to know how to proceed. Perhaps the nation has industrial capability, maybe better than any other nation. If so, it would be easier to liberalize institutions. If it were a nation of primitive savages, the process of allowing market forces to "do their magic" would be hindered by the fact that there would be very little wealth to take to market. Privatization brings enemies from all levels. Many Brits from the coal miners union have never forgiven Margret Thatcher. 4. The most difficult task of transitioning from absolute rule to rule of law is to institutionalize reason, purpose, and self-esteem. It would take generations of educational reform to reverse the effects of a church or state monopolized school system, and it would be made clear that that school system would not be public forever. On this point, there will be the old and unreconstructed who will always tell their children and grandchildren how much better it was under the old regime. I wouldn't expect my "revolution" to be successful beyond my life, but if my works and words survive me in the memories of others, it could be the genesis of something to come. I might be "air-brushed" out of my nation's history books, but I would die satisfied knowing I tried.
  4. Who ever originally posted that comment is an ignorant trouble-maker, and not should be engaged with any intelligent response. Most Americans of any background don't care much at all about the historic significance; the Fourth of July is just a great chance for people to take a summertime break, have a cook-out, and watch the fireworks.
  5. New Buddha, I hope I'm not being taken as a behaviorist. I wasn't raised by Jesuits, but a little too close to it. Young people are often burdened in their early years with unwrapping the tangle of illogical lessons they've been taught as children. Alternatives to our public (and parochial) school systems would be a great step forward to teaching children to think independently. If capitalism is to survive, the role of education is critical. I'm not an expert on primary education, but I think we'll never know how many little socialist/collectivist monsters were unleashed by the comprachicos of modern education.
  6. Laika, This information, for all of its grim implications, has a bright side: On an average, Americas are averse to any serious study of history or philosophy, as the surveys suggest. This puts us at risk of failing to recognize dangerous policies and ideologies. The focus of most Americans is looking forward, that is, they are interested in the applications of new technologies, and learning how new technologies might improve their lives. I'm not so alarmed by the fact that so many people choose to ignore the lessons of history, not so much as I used to be. I am somewhat concerned about the rise of the Religious-Right and the trend toward tribalism in American politics. What alarms me is the increased interest of young people inspired by current political celebrities, (presidents) and seek to "save the world" through their altruistic efforts. As ill-equipped as they may be for the task, it would require only a small number of pro-capitalist, libertarian, or, hopefully, Objectivist advocates to challenge the Alt-Right and "Bernie Sanders Bouncers." Of course, it would help immensely for this small number of rebels to be members of the same youthful demographic category. In her book, For the New Intellectual, Ayn Rand professed the need for the philosophical businessmen. Such a heroic celebrity could change the popular perception of capitalism. The logic of economic liberty and private ownership are not all that difficult to appreciate. However, it always sounds better to promise "free-lunch." I hope the present-day display of naivete toward absurd ideas (and absurd presidential candidates) is not permanent. And mostly, I hope more young people crack open a history book an their Kindle devises.
  7. How did it become my responsibility to change society at all?
  8. Repairman

    Marxism

    One way of looking at the success of a debate is the strength of the argument by its factual presentation, and another way would be to judge the argument is by its power of persuasion. Marx intended to prove that there was a scientific approach to constructing social order. He may have won over many intellectuals, but your average person is interested in nothing other than the moral outcome and its affect on people. The formal fact-based argument is a strong argument, but if the evils of socialism in its many forms is to be confronted, opposed, and subdued, it is going to require persuasion of the many. And to do that, advocates of capitalism or Objectivism may in fact need to simplify the argument to meet the level of understanding of masses. Sometimes, a headline from a news report is sufficiently persuasive, or a history lesson. As Grames pointed out, Ayn Rand chose to use literature to convey her argument. What ever form the anti-Marxist message takes, it will need to be processed in the minds of individuals, individuals who form society, who vote with both dollars and ballots. Indisputably, the purely rational argument has its place. From my outlook, the average person needs to be informed in a way that he/she can "chew on it."
  9. I am optimistic about America, although very cautiously so. The hazards are obvious. My solution is to challenge the conventional perception of capitalism. Socialism, as an increasing influence in American politics and economics, was sold to the voters as a pragmatic solution to an increasingly unstable situation at the turn of the preceding century, and elevated to the new normal during the 1930s Great Depression. "Capitalism failed," was the overly simplistic motto espoused, not only in those times, but that bromide persists as the lessons learned by school children today. I agree entirely with your assertion that one must think independently in order to arrive at these solutions, and Americans are increasingly taught to think (and act) as their tribal identities directs them. Your vision of a 21st century capitalist utopia is less likely to survive in a world of global chaos than it would in a world in which the financial conditions of the industrial nations were to sustain their economic composure. The fundamental solution to sustaining global stability is through education. Objectivism is a fact-based philosophy. If the grown-ups can be persuaded to accept the reality of facts, their children will be the beneficiaries. We arrived in our present-day economic arrangement of muddled contradictions, not by accident, but by misguided philosophy. "Give me the child in the first seven years, I will give your the man." - The Jesuit Maxim
  10. In these times, most people think of their government officials as untrustworthy, that is until it's time to cast a vote. Then, it's a matter of choosing the candidate who is less untrustworthy. As far as anyone in government being altruistic, my hope is to persuade as many people as possible to reject any candidate for making any claim to altruism. I agree that markets at present a not entirely free; I cannot think of any time in history when their wasn't some threat to merchants, whether they be highwaymen, pirates, or some other form of marauding army. In more stable times, the producer simply offered up some form of tribute to the most powerful warlord for protection. Today, we call that taxation. Government action in the form of prosecuting those who do not pay their tribute, taxes, (or for that matter, bribes) has historically led to instability, and often revolution or uprisings. In the short term, the officials may be acting in a greedy and irrational form of self-interest, but when the mob gets angry enough, they are voted out of office, or in the cases of the most unstable of times, it's "off with their heads."
  11. Actually, in the case of black markets, third party or state interference is present, by the very definition. Image Al Capone becoming a successful entrepreneur without the assistance from the government, which prevented established breweries from competing on an open market. The most successful undocumented capitalists usually pay the highest bribes to the highest government officials.
  12. Repairman

    Marxism

    At no point am I suggesting that Laika said anything to the effect that formal debate is ineffective in all cases. I am not suggesting that formal debate is ineffective in all cases. If a person chooses to discuss the pros and cons of Marxism with emotional detachment, then of course one would argue on merit of fact. Taking into consideration the fact that the average Left-leaning person doesn't even know who Karl Marx was, it wouldn't be very effective to analyze Marxist theory. The impression I take from Laika's approach to the argument is that most Marxist take their beliefs as personally as any person of faith. Whether this is exactly true or not is a subjective matter; as far as being remotely true, I would say it has a better than fair chance of being true. Plasmatic, not that I wish to change the topic, but what specifically is it that Laika said that isn't true?
  13. Repairman

    Marxism

    Laika, I have the impression that we share an understanding of the historical importance of applied Marxism. In regard to exploitation theory and the Marxian Labor Theory of Value, (as proposed in the opening post), I can't offer much. gio, in the preceding post may have nailed it, but I wouldn't be the one to make that call. I am self-educated. My academic background is limited. I met only one self-identifying Marxist in my long life, and he didn't impress me as very well-equipped to defend his beliefs. Perhaps in the arena of higher learning, the breadth of knowledge you and some of the other OO contributors display could be hugely advantageous in a formal debate. Given your acknowledgement that persuasion requires for than facts, perhaps we could say that the formal debate is a somewhat ineffective means to the end result of confronting the popularity of socialism. Socialism is very popular in America, as long as you don't openly call it socialism. Without getting too deep into American politics, the people I work with are mostly displeased with the idea that the worst elements in society receive welfare benefits, while they have to work, but if you raise the subject of "the rich," you see the proverbial blood in their eyes. Americans workers have little in common with the proletariat of a century ago, but the sentiment is still very much alive: class-warfare, class-struggle, and all of the devises used by the International Workers of the World, long since forgotten along with the Cold War. These are the forces that shape the changes in our world, and when practical, I seek the unpopular course of resistance by reasoning with the few who question whether or not their notions of capitalism are correct.
  14. Repairman

    Marxism

    Laika, this is an extraordinary explanation of the nuances involved in the art of persuasion, and it may almost be as easily applied to radical ideologies of either race or religion. Emotions run much deeper among the religiously and racially conflicted. Solid factual arguments rarely if ever have any effect on the true-believers. However, I will say that opening an individual up to such honest discussion would require quite a long time, patience, and in the end, that true-believer will need to draw his/her own conclusions, as you have mentioned. If someone is capable of thinking through the case for Marxism, I believe it is just as possible for them to reason the case against it.
  15. I especially agree with your judgement that the Christian Church is a subject too complex for squeezing into a single post. I understand the Puritans to have been more ridged than Catholics. And yet, somehow, reason seemed to flourish more in the Protestant nations in comparison to the Catholic nations. Perhaps we'll take up variations of Christian sects and their histories on another thread.
  16. Absolutely right, the early 20th century (pre-1917) and the Great Depression were periods of popularity for Marx among intellectuals and union organizers. Anti-Jim Crow and union sympathizers were largely unwelcome in the American South. Communism suffered more discredit for being "foreign" than being atheist, and during both World Wars, nationalism ran high. Today, the New-Left is more likely to be influenced by John Lennon than Vladimir Lenin. Edit: The decline and fall of the Soviet Union has been a huge benefit for the New-Left; they no longer need to worry about being compared to the USSR.
  17. Were not the early Christians persecuted for refusing to renouncing their faith? In many cases, the result was being sacrificed in arena.
  18. New Buddha, You're right about the determinism in Lutheranism and Calvinism, but I was making reference to the total dominance over common people exploited by the Roman Catholic Church, and more to the point, self-sacrifice, (especially regarding the rejection of earthly possessions, and the sinfulness of man) rather than later interpretations by theologians and reformers. My understanding of "freewill" is quite different from that of the Church's. I can always counter on your analysis for constructive criticism. I hope my use of determinism is the correct word applying to Luther and Calvin. In any case, Marx certainly held the view that world socialism was manifestly predetermined. While I will make no argument that capitalism gained in significance as a result of Protestantism, the practice of private property and voluntary trade has its origins in early civilizations. The emerging Protestant nations advanced capitalism, as the mercantile system displaced feudalism. With regard to the centralizing of monarchical and aristocratic powers, yes, the Church in both the East and West secured the authority of kings and princes. But this was not a part of Christianity before its acceptance as a legitimate religion in the 4th century. This is absolutely true, but I wouldn't say that the American churches were ever worried about losing followers. If you understand anything about Americans, it is a fact that some will become hostile, even violent, if in the presence of an atheist, especially an atheist who is open about his disbelief. Otherwise, the average working American has absolutely no interest in philosophical debates. If you believe in God, you're OK. If not, watch out. If you mentioned "materialism" to most people I know, they would assume you were talking about consumer habit. Well, I hope I've clarified my points, and I'll accept any corrections where appropriate. I will maintain that my comparison of communism to Christianity is valid on the grounds that throughout early Christianity, and many of the latter interpretations, man must seek redemption through some form of self-sacrifice.
  19. Laika, I find this to be a curious statement. Christianity, a source of theory for capitalism? Aside from the fact that commerce was conducted since the earliest civilizations, well before the establishment of Christianity, it should be pointed out that Christianity has a great deal more in common with communism, rather than capitalism. Freewill was not an original component of Christianity; it developed from the Protestant Reformation more than a thousand years later, and led to the decline of religious (Christian) influence on Western Civilization. Christian teachings emphasize redistribution of wealth voluntarily, while Marx advocated the same results through violent revolution, coercion, enforced by state law. Both require man to submit to a higher power,i.e. either supernatural authority, or the authority of the masses. Objectivism rejects any form of submission, other than an acceptance of reality. Human rights, natural rights, these are the domain of the individual, and man is the only form of life able to conceptualize the values that recognize the proper relationship between the individual, his place in society, and to the state. Correct me if I wrong, but I understand Marx viewed history as driven by the class-struggle. Rand held that history is driven by philosophy. And the political rise of Christianity proved to be one of the most detrimental philosophical/theological tragedies in the history of Western Civilization. The metaphysical rejection of supernatural powers is a matter of common ground for Marx and Rand, but details beyond that point are a bit more complex. I'm glad that you can appreciate Grames' remark; in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, socialism was considered the "new religion."
  20. Laika, Welcome to the Forum; I find your statements above particularly interesting. It would not be the first time I have engaged a self-identifying Communist here, but you seem to be questioning your own rationale regarding Marx. You must understand by now that there is no utopian paradise, nor any process of achieving one, at least in the sense intended by Marx. Objectivism does not promise utopia. Rather, it is a philosophy detailing a path to personal fulfillment and possibly the creation of the most just society possible under a purely capitalist system, separating economic activity from government action. We may never arrive at the later, but you have every opportunity to discover more about the former. I am unable to offer any recommendations with regard to your depression, only to say that in my youth, I could only see the bleak outcome of social and political trends, if carried to their extremes, and it frightened me. I knew nothing about Ayn Rand or her Objectivism, only the absurdity of social, political, and cultural norms. I knew about Marx; I always considered him to have been a fraud, as well as an easy target for Right-Wing pundits and common place conversation. But one of the great contributing factors to the problems of our times is that few if any people question their own notions of right and wrong, let alone seek out a philosophical school of thought. It is apparent from your posts that you have put a great deal of thought into your philosophical outlook. As for your list of six questions opening this thread, I will limit my response to only number six: Gordon Gekko is a fictional character, a caricature created by Oliver Stone. If you look at Stone's body of works, you see many films critical of American militarism, capitalism, and Right-Wing points of view in general with no regard for honesty. Objectivism does not support Right-Wing politics any more than it supports Left-Wing politics. Inasmuch as I hope you will keep examining the works of Ayn Rand, I hope you find the honesty lacking in Marx, and possibly even your happiness.
  21. Welcome to the Forum, Questor. How much of Ayn Rand's non-fiction have you read? The two novels you sited are excellent, but the broader scope of Objective is not related to stoicism, humanism, nor libertarian politics, although I might understand how someone would make comparisons. I don't know if Ayn Rand ever commented on Thoreau or Gandhi, but she certainly disapproved the transcendentalist and Buddhist schools of thoughts. However, if you have specific questions related to Objectivism, this is the place. And I would strongly urge you to read some of the many non-fiction works, if you have not already.
  22. My advice is to question yourself as to whether or not these people are actually your friends. You may measure your success by a different meter. There certainly are arrogant people in the world. But arrogance is, by itself, not evil. If these were people attempting to somehow manipulate you, I would say they are evil, or to the least, people you should avoid.
  23. Mindborg: (from the other thread, on respecting the US flag), "What would it take for you Repairman to put up 100 dollars? If I gave you 1 month free rent in Tahiti on a simple but functional platform with free internet, power, shower, bathroom, bedroom and a promise that you can have discussions with an investor and a builder who loves reason and philosophy, would that be attractive? If I tell you that you have a >0% chance of becoming a founding father of a new America, would that be attractive?" My response is that I have been to Tahiti: Nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there. The reef in Cozumel was much better. Your offer does not include free medical or dental care. I think we both know that there is no free-lunch. As for my chances of becoming a founding father of any revolutionary movement, or a new America, I have 0% interest. I have no desire to be remembered by anyone other than those who know me now, and in my passing, the only monument to be erected in my honor will be over my grave. As tough as it is in these United States, the benefits of our institutions, as dysfunctional as they may be, and our infrastructure, as byzantine as it may be, are suitable for my security and comfort. I would be poorly suited as an experimental pioneer. Sorry, no deal.
  24. I believe it is possible. One must keep hope alive. How? The process of would likely be gradual. Among the first institutions to be challenged would be the public educational system. Of course, this would require the creation of privately owned and operated schools, and a significant percentage of parental consent. I haven't given the project much more thought than this, but it is the only process that can be arranged by individual consent and free market principles. I am intrigued with your proposal for creating a modern Atlantis, as problematic as it may be. I may make a statement on the other thread you created. This too is an intriguing suggestion. But technology does not guide philosophy; philosophy guides technology. Certainly, technology can radically change the means of expanding ideas and ideology. The men who framed the US Constitution did not devise a comprehensive philosophy. Libertarian politics offer no comprehensive philosophy. Without a philosophy based on axiomatic reason, no technology, no military, nor any democratic mob action will guarantee a social order of just laws and institutions enforced with the consent of the governed. Philosophy guides ideology. Lack of such a philosophy is the primary explanation for American individualism gone adrift. The truth of a philosophy must be self-evident. Advancing the truth of Objectivism is our first best hope.
×
×
  • Create New...