Little Owl

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.

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.

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'?"