Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Integrating Objectivism and Marxism

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I'm a little late to this thread and haven't read the entire thing yet, so I hope this hasn't been mentioned already. Anyways, critical theory (the neo-Marxian philosophy) shares quite a bit of commonality with Objectivism. However, critical theorists are also often regarded as reactionaries by more orthodox Marxists.

 

One thing we have to understand is that "Marxism" (unlike Objectivism, which is largely regarded as a closed system) is a broad term that means many different things to many different people. You simply cannot expect Marxists to unanimously agree upon a fusion of Marxism and Objectivism when there is already such explicit inter-sectionalism on the micro level (e.g., Stalinism vs. Maoism), and explicit antipathy on the macro level (e.g., Stalinism vs. libertarian-socialism). Such a combination, even if it could work, would probably be boldly rejected by the majority of self-proclaimed Marxists, which begs the question of whether or not it could even be regarded as a legitimate variety of Marxism in the first place.

 

I think the most important question here before we think about integrating Objectivism and Marxism is, "What aspects of Marxism can be eliminated or revised, and to what extent can they be revised, before the ideology can no longer be considered 'Marxism'?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Little Owl,

First, let me welcome you to the forum. I would be interested to know how much you've learned about Objectivism. Your claim that "...neo-Marxian philosophy shares quite a bit of commonality with Objectivism," will be met with varying degrees of resistance from me, and I believe some of the other contributors to this particular thread. If you care to take the time to read the previous 10 pages, you will find that not only did no one who even came near integrating Marxism with Objectivism, but that defenders of Objectivism find the very idea repugnant to say the least. The closest that anyone can agree is that an isolated group of communal volunteers could coexists within a predominately capitalistic society. This would be a compromise rather than an integration. Among the first 250 posts of this thread, the central topic, "integrating," went off the proverbial rails of a crazy train. On merit of argument, I can't speak for Marxian purists, but as an avid Objectivist, I can assure you, the differences segregating Marx and Rand are too explicit. There can be no such integration. Ayn Rand explicitly identified any compromise with altruism as surrender to evil. For this reason, it is necessary to understand how much of Rand's non-fiction you've read. The initiator and primary contributor to this thread had read none of Rand's non-fiction, merely a few of her fictional works, and only a portion of her most important novel, Atlas Shrugged. The exchange of ideas was, I regret to say, pandemonium. If you seriously believe that there is very much in common between the philosophies of Marx and Rand, make your case. We could eliminate their positions on religion. While their explanations of dismissing religious dogma may differ somewhat, there the similarities end.

 

Again, you're welcome to make your case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the welcome, Repairman, and my apologies, I shouldn't have been so vague. Here's what I perceive as similarities between Objectivism and critical theory, as far as my understanding of both ideologies goes:

  • Both Objectivism and critical theory hold positive rights in contempt while favoring negative freedoms. Critical theorists see positive rights as the product of a victim complex, of people submitting to authority and intervention in exchange for protection (or supposed protection) from problems which they're afraid to confront on their own. Critical theorists consider positive rights in general to be potential building blocks for tyranny and totalitarianism.
  • In rejecting positive rights, critical theory also rejects altruism, or self-sacrifice for the group's sake. Critical theory, like Objectivism, is based around egoism. It simply places heavier emphasis on the fact that our choices in life affect more than just ourselves, and that how we affect others may lead to unintended consequences for ourselves. (I'm not sure as to whether or not critical theory can be considered utilitarian in this regard, however. If so then that would explicitly contradict Objectivism.)
  • On a similar note, critical theory does not reject capitalism or assert that socialism, communism or anarchism is the appropriate path. Instead its objective is to critique and bring awareness to the consequences of a given economic system or power structure.
  • Both Objectivism and critical theory are antipositivist ideologies; both focus primarily on the "why" rather than the "how".
  • Both Objectivism and critical theory suppose that, in a sense, one's thoughts may not be their own, because our minds are under constant assault by external forces which seek to subvert our ability to think independently.

Also it was not my intention to come off as implying that there is a lot in common between the philosophies of Marx and Rand. I was speaking in regards to the specific ideology which is critical theory, which is not a philosophy of Marx but rather a philosophy which evolved out of and drew inspiration from his work. With the exception of Anthem and The Fountainhead, I have only read Rand's non-fictional works, as well as some essays by Peikoff.

Edited by Little Owl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Little Owl,

First, let me welcome you to the forum. I would be interested to know how much you've learned about Objectivism. Your claim that "...neo-Marxian philosophy shares quite a bit of commonality with Objectivism," will be met with varying degrees of resistance from me, and I believe some of the other contributors to this particular thread. If you care to take the time to read the previous 10 pages, you will find that not only did no one who even came near integrating Marxism with Objectivism, but that defenders of Objectivism find the very idea repugnant to say the lea...but as an avid Objectivist, I can assure you, the differences segregating Marx and Rand are too explicit. There can be no such integration....

Of course this seems to be the obvious knee-jerk, but people who do actual philosophy draw parallels between different thinkers all the time. Nothing repugnant about that...? Why not, for example, take a look at post #83 and some of the work done by those scholars?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the welcome, Repairman, and my apologies, I shouldn't have been so vague. Here's what I perceive as similarities between Objectivism and critical theory, as far as my understanding of both ideologies goes:

  • Both Objectivism and critical theory hold positive rights in contempt while favoring negative freedoms. Critical theorists see positive rights as the product of a victim complex, of people submitting to authority and intervention in exchange for protection (or supposed protection) from problems which they're afraid to confront on their own. Critical theorists consider positive rights in general to be potential building blocks for tyranny and totalitarianism.
  • In rejecting positive rights, critical theory also rejects altruism, or self-sacrifice for the group's sake. Critical theory, like Objectivism, is based around egoism. It simply places heavier emphasis on the fact that our choices in life affect more than just ourselves, and that how we affect others may lead to unintended consequences for ourselves. (I'm not sure as to whether or not critical theory can be considered utilitarian in this regard, however. If so then that would explicitly contradict Objectivism.)
  • On a similar note, critical theory does not reject capitalism or assert that socialism, communism or anarchism is the appropriate path. Instead its objective is to critique and bring awareness to the consequences of a given economic system or power structure.
  • Both Objectivism and critical theory are antipositivist ideologies; both focus primarily on the "why" rather than the "how".
  • Both Objectivism and critical theory suppose that, in a sense, one's thoughts may not be their own, because our minds are under constant assault by external forces which seek to subvert our ability to think independently.

Also it was not my intention to come off as implying that there is a lot in common between the philosophies of Marx and Rand. I was speaking in regards to the specific ideology which is critical theory, which is not a philosophy of Marx but rather a philosophy which evolved out of and drew inspiration from his work. With the exception of Anthem and The Fountainhead, I have only read Rand's non-fictional works, as well as some essays by Peikoff.

 

Although Objectivism is often associated with "negative rights" (as many libertarians are), Ayn Rand rejected the negative/positive rights dichotomy. Rights are the moral perquisites for man to live qua man. They are neither claims on products of others (like positive rights) nor only declarations of the moral limitations of other (like negative), but rather rights are claims to take certain actions. My right to private property is a moral claim on my ability and freedom to use what I create as I see fit. It may imply limitations on others, in the sense that no one else can use my property without my permission, but those limitations are corollaries, not the primary. Defining rights in a purely negative way opens up all sorts of conceptual problems, which have probably been discussed elsewhere on this forum. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Admittedly, I know little of Chris Sciabarra (see post #83.) I doubt if I will read his books. If anyone can provide a summary of his theories, I will do so.

 

Of course this seems to be the obvious knee-jerk, but people who do actual philosophy draw parallels between different thinkers all the time. Nothing repugnant about that...? Why not, for example, take a look at post #83 and some of the work done by those scholars?

As I have found a few items pertaining to Sciabarra's works on the internet, none of these articles has led me to believe there has been any genuine "integration" of Objectivism. And I am not an academic. I have not formally studied philosophy. I would fall more into the category of a practicing Objectivist. When the day comes that "real" intellectuals are able to present a philosophy as comprehensive and universal as Objectivism, I may take a look at it as my discretionary time permits. But it would have to be titled under a different name; occasionally there have been attempts to present neo-Objectivist theories on the forum. But I would contend that if the essential axiomatic principles of Objectivism are the foundation of any set of ethics, why call it anything else other than an argument of interpreting Objectivism.

While Little Owl has presented a nice list of comparisons, (some of which are admittedly not Marxist) my position holds: Marxism and Objectivism are incompatible. If one is practicing one philosophy, that person is not practicing the other. The differences between the two create a barrier through which only the most contorted hypothetical construct could breach.

How would such a philosophy be put into practice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While Little Owl has presented a nice list of comparisons, (some of which are admittedly not Marxist) my position holds: Marxism and Objectivism are incompatible. If one is practicing one philosophy, that person is not practicing the other. The differences between the two create a barrier through which only the most contorted hypothetical construct could breach.

 

But again, Marxism is an open system as well as a label which already applies to a very diverse spectrum of ideologies, ranging from totalitarian to libertarian, democratic to republican, collectivist to individualist, internationalist to ultranationalist, anti-theistic to theocratic, etc. To say that Marxism and Objectivism are incompatible is not necessarily true, given Marxism's fluid nature. It may—may—be possible for the former to be revised to the point that it is compatible with the latter.

 

When you say "Marxist" you seem to be referring explicitly to classical Marxism. When I said that critical theory is not a philosophy of Marx, I meant that it didn't come directly "from Marx," as you put it in your response. It's not a component of classical Marxism, but it's still Marxian; neo-Marxian. Also note that I didn't bring up critical theory to present an example of a Marxian ideology which is compatible with Objectivism, but to provide an example of something that may resemble the successful combination of the two, to serve as a reference of sorts.

Edited by Little Owl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without a doubt, Little Owl, you have the advantage of a broad knowledge of Marxist/neo-Marxist theory. I do not. I have a fairly superficial understanding of classic Marxism. My understanding of Objectivism is somewhat better. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but as I interpret your argument, critical theory is a contortion of Marxist theory. Objectivism is not a very flexible philosophy, in fact, it is somewhat unforgiving in its rejection of any requirement of man to sacrifice for his fellow man. The explicit defense and validation of laissez-faire capitalism is a tenet of Objectivism. Compromise these two standards of morality, and you have destroyed the essence of Objectivist ethics. Does any interpretation of Marx avoid violating these requirements of Rand?

And if it is possible theoretically, how can it be implemented in practice?

Edited by Repairman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all tangential.

Little Owl, you seem sincere in this and while I'm not very familiar with "critical theory" the observations you've mentioned of Objectivist principles are entirely accurate.

 

But you're missing the forest for the trees.

 

If you took the blueprints for two different buildings, such as a skyscraper and a cathedral, retained the similarities and blended the differences between them, of what value would the result be?  Consider specifically the mechanical differences; how high can bricks and mortar be stacked?

If you're familiar with the practice of remixing an old song into a new one, consider the difference between a great remix and a trite one- I promise that you'll see the method I'm referring to.

 

Integrating any pair of things isn't simply a matter of finding their similarities and differences; we also have to understand the reasons for such differences.  Anything less will necessarily be arbitrary.

 

So in order to actually integrate Objectivism with "critical theory" we must not only find their differences but also the reasons for them.  So what's the root difference?  At first glance it may seem political but it isn't; all of their political differences stem from the moral.

 

Ultimately the question to ask is what Marxism considers proper for an isolated individual. . .

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll give you a hint.

 

When Ilya stated that an emotion 'to be experienced must be expressed socially,' it was a reference to something very important.

 

It was the basis of the reasoning behind this very thread and the precise root of Marxism's conflict with Objectivism.  If you come to understand nothing except that, you'll understand everything that would be necessary to 'integrate' the two, as well as the source of many Objectivists' contempt for the suggestion.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it is necessary to restate my case, I will maintain that Objectivism would cease to be Objectivism if the axiomatic tenets of Objectivism were somehow "integrated" with Marxism, or any belief that includes the demise of private ownership of property. So far, none of the "pro-integrationist" have even come close to making a compelling argument.

 

 To say that Marxism and Objectivism are incompatible is not necessarily true, given Marxism's fluid nature. It may—may—be possible for the former to be revised to the point that it is compatible with the latter.

 

Little Owl, I'm glad you have such an interest in Objectivism, in that you've read the non-fiction, but you have yet to make your case as to the compatibility of these diametrically opposing philosophies.

 

Harrison, I perceive your position as similar to mine. Regarding "emotions expressed socially," those "emotions" are quite often the maudlin expressions of the sort we witness all together too much in the media. Maybe I'm not exactly on the page, but I thought it worth commenting on the fallacy of popular trends such as public display of emotions. Is this what you were referring to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is talking about the demise of property rights? Whynot respond to what writers on Rand-Marx comparisons have actually written and why or why not you find it compelling instead of respond to a phantom Marxist heresy of objectivist pureness?

This is exactly how ARI dismissed Prof Sciabarra's great biography of Rand, oh Rand a dialectical thinker that's just blasphemy! Instead if just taking it at face value and responding to points raised...

Edited by 2046
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In that general area, Repairman, but something very specific and fundamental.

When Occupy Wall Street protesters declare "we are the 99%" we both know that's a total nonessential.  And when people communicate something using arbitrary little nonessentials, you know that it's an anticonceptual code of some sort.

 

What do you suppose they actually mean when they scream that from the rooftops- and why the exclusive use of 'we'?  Have you by any chance read Anthem?

 

Stop and think about it.  What would it mean if Ilya had made that statement about emotions, literally and in all sincerity?  What can we deduce from it?

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harrison, I shutter to even think of a collective emotion, mind, or identity with any 99%. I find group displays of emotions appalling, unless they are displays of joy and admiration from an enthusiastic audience, or intimacy between the intimate. Indeed, I have read Anthem, and I've encouraged other to read. It is the depiction of everything wrong with our trend toward collectivism.

 

Who is talking about the demise of property rights? Whynot respond to what writers on Rand-Marx comparisons have actually written and why or why not you find it compelling instead of respond to a phantom Marxist heresy of objectivist pureness?

This is exactly how ARI dismissed Prof Sciabarra's great biography of Rand, oh Rand a dialectical thinker that's just blasphemy! Instead if just taking it at face value and responding to points raised...

In order to apply such terms as "heresy" and "blasphemy" one much be referring to some dogmatic guide to action. Perhaps Marxism is so flexible that one could twist it into anything one wishes it. So spell it out and explain how this "integration" would transpire, if you can. Other than your point that I haven't read Sciabarra's book, what points should I be taking at face value?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...