Leaderboard

Karl Marx argued that competition over limited resources was inherent in society and framed it as a perpetual conflict of interest of the members of that society. Marx’s theory of exploitation of the working class in capitalist societies is summed up with a ruling bourgeoisie and an oppressed proletariat are not interacting using rational means (voluntary agreements). “The bourgeoisie maintains social order through domination rather than agreement.” This state of affairs is considered a constant conflict of interest going on in society … not voluntary trading. "Exploitation: when workers receive less money than what their labor is worth." Rand argues for a political/economic/civilization model in which demonstrates that the conflict is not a valid conflict i.e. in a laissez fair Capitalist system, this conflict is simply nonsensical. Similarly, "Problems become noticeable because the upper class is looking to get the most production possible for the least amount of money." would also indicate a conflict that does not exist. "Consider the relationship between the owner of a housing complex and a tenant in that same housing complex”. An Austrian economist “might suggest that the relationship between the owner and the tenant is founded on mutual benefit. In contrast, a conflict theorist might argue the relationship is based on a conflict in which the owner and tenant are struggling against each other." And sure enough "Social conflict theory is a Marxist-based social theory which argues that individuals and groups (social classes) within society interact on the basis of conflict rather than consensus." In Objectivism/Austrian economics, these conflicts don’t exist. In other words their (Marxist) ideologically based perspective observes a conflict that is not valid. The implication of the Marx’s analysis is that "conflict of interest among men" will be perpetual since bourgeoisie “domination” is itself a "conflict of interest". A Hegelian Dialectic progression that will never end. So they see Capitalism attempting to create law and order … through "conflict of interest" (i.e. domination and subjugation). In a free market society, by it’s nature, no one is dominating. This is seen as impossible in the Marxist view so Rand’s “no conflict of interest” is a refutation of the impossibility. Competition over limited resources (a normal free market operation for an Objectivist) is considered to be a state of “conflict of interest” by a Marxist, in fact, it a perpetual state of conflict of interest. So based on Marxist reasoning, (what an Objectivist would consider normal) as in a competitive market pricing allocation supply and demand based system with the inequality of outcome it produces is viewed as a perpetual conflict of interest. According to them rational agreements, between members, are not happening (perhaps because they are impossible in a Marxist perspective). As far as rationality goes, Irrational justice, or justice among irrational people, at best may refer to a momentary blip where these people were lucky and there was some justice. Perpetual is the key word that Rand uses specify conflict. Rand writes: "Only an irrationalist ... exists in a perpetual conflict of 'interests.' Not only do his alleged interests clash with those of other men, but they clash also with one another." (VOS, p. 58) The momentary aspect of “conflict” or “interest”, their not being in the long run has some relevance. Rand is to attacking the perpetual aspect of Marx’s formulation. Perpetuity is an implication that has been omitted from “conflict” but essential to gain a proper interpretation. Therefore, I would argue that in the context of refuting Marx’s argument, conflict refers to perpetual conflict. So whenever she says conflict, she means “perpetual conflict”, and no conflict means no perpetual conflict. It is obvious to any observer, that “no conflict” cannot mean absence of all conflict (as was observed in the thread). She is also attacking the Marxist idea that Capitalism. by its nature, is an exercise in dealing with “conflict of interest” via brute force, subjugation of the worker by the bourgeoisie. Finally, it is common sense that, rationality is at the core of eliminating “perpetual conflict of any kind”, including conflict over scarce resources. But in Marxism you are a product of your environment, so rationality has no import. This is currently is my most plausible interpretation of “no conflict of interest” among rational men which is her response to the Marxist notion an “inherent” perpetual conflict of interest exists among men in a Capitalist society. I think I am satisfied no and I'm letting it go. Thanks for helping get me here (all of you in the thread). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conflict_theory https://learn.robinhood.com/articles/gzswQoUGEZSTPk9xcGS2T/what-is-conflict-theory/

Our new episode covers the controversy over the NY Times' 1619 Project versus Trump's push for patriotic education, when it comes to teaching history. We also get pretty deep into the principles and design of the correct curriculum.