New Buddha

The reason that I suggested in the other post that you read Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology is that until you see the error in "dialectic" thinking you will continue to believe that language, concepts, words, propositions, etc. are nothing more than subjective "phantoms formed in the human brain " used by one group to exploit another. It's also hypocritical of the Left to deny (or conveniently overlook) that historically, Marxism - Scientific Socialism - was supposed to put a tractor in every driveway and bring electricity to the proletariat. Scientific, centralized planning was supposed to do away with the inefficiency of capitalism - leading to a massive growth in industry, technology, material wealth and goods. It was only when this utterly failed that the Left became concerned about "resources" and the "environment" and the "horrors" of consumerism and over consumption. This is known as "moving the goal post".

Here's what Centralized Planning looks like:

I think the term you are looking for is "crony capitalism".

From the other post The American journalist H. L. Mencken said, "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

Based on your posts in the past, I don't think you and I differ too much wrt history. I do think that the history of early Christianity and the formation of the Christian Church(s) is far too complex (and too unknown) to sum up as done in the above. The point I made about Calvin's Geneva and Thomas More's Utopia is to agree with you that there have been strains of Socialism in Christianity - but that it is different from Marx's. And I wouldn't just reduce either of them to a desire for "self-sacrifice". That's really ALL that I meant by it being a "lazy" term. Engles has a work called Socialism:  Utopian and Scientific which is interesting.

Leaving out the reference to "early" Christianity, Calvin's Geneva did resemble what was to become Christian Socialism. A quote from a wonderful book, The Western Intellectual Tradition that I think you would love based on your interest in history: The regime Calvin imposed on Geneva was in many ways similar to that in More's Utopia. (p. 94) Both Luther and Calvin opposed not only the new art but the developing science of their time as well. In many ways, they were more fiercely antiscientific in their attitude than was the Church of Rome, and it has often been pointed out that Galileo, although he was badly treated by the Inquisition in Rome, would have suffered more severely if he had been unfortunate enough to live in the Geneva of Calvin's regime. Later, the twists and turns of history were to make the Puritans staunch supporters of the new science; but none of this was intended by Calvin's doctrine and discipline. (p. 95) Predestination was a problem from day-one in both Lutheranism and Calvinism and did get modified pretty quickly. Regarding "self-sacrifice" and the role it plays in Christianity, I think it's a fairly lazy term that can mean pretty much what anyone wants it to mean. Much of the early Church was formed along the lines of Neoplatonism. The line of demarcation between when early Christians "quit" following Greek philosophy and became "Christians" is not so sharp - and in fact, Christian theologically never really did exist independent of it.

Yes. Later scholars debated quite a bit about what Marx actually meant wrt freedom and dialectic materialism. I have an interesting book, published in 1974 titled The Problem of Freedom in Marxist Thought, by J. J. O'Rourke that explores modern (then modern) Soviet philosophy on the issue. Edit: I think you would get a lot out of Rand's An Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

If you have any links, I'd be interested in reading more about this. We also had a recent post about Property that you might find interesting.

I fully agree. Locke said that neither the RC Church (or Anglican) nor the King was a source of rights, property, etc. He attributed them to an individual Man's capacity for direct correspondence with God - i.e. no need for intermediaries such as the King or the Church. At a later date, Jefferson's view on the foundation of rights, property, etc. were influenced by his Epicureanism - which, oddly enough (or not) formed the basis of Marx's Doctoral Thesis" The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature. The reintroduction of Atomism into Western Europe was instrumental in the development of science. Newton was very much influenced by the Lucretius' work De rerum natura . Atomism was largely viewed as atheistic.

In many ways, Marx's Historical Determinism is just a reflection of Lutheranism's Predestination prevalent in German society. This accounts for it's "fatalist" nature.

Locke was specifically rejecting the Divine Right of Kings as put forth by James I and his supporters. The modern form of the Divine Right of Kings can be traced to Luther's decision to side with the German/Prussian Princes (see my post above about the rise of Altruism - meaning the "State").

It's just the opposite. Predestination was a thesis Lutheranism and Calvinism. Protestantism held the position (roughly speaking) that no one - that is, no Man - in the Roman Catholic Church had the power to grant or confer, to another Man, salvation or the absolution from sin. Predestination was a way of denying the RC Church power. The RC Church did believe in Free Will. In England, Protestantism (more specifically, Dissenting Protestants/Puritans/Nonconformists, etc.) were directly linked with the rise of both Science and Capitalism -- the latter which included a mature development of Natural Rights and Property by Locke among others. Those who refused to join the Anglican Church did not have full Civil Rights so to make a "living" they went into banking, trade, science, engineering, industry, manufacturing, etc. Of the 68 early Fellows of the Royal Society, 42 were Puritans.

The American journalist H. L. Mencken said, "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." I don't think that many in the U.S. understand how fully the "threat" of Global Warming permeates Western European thought and shapes the direction of politics. Christiana Figueres, at the time, the top UN Climate Change official said: "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history", "This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 - you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation." She obviously is not advocating Free Market economics, private property, etc. From my perspective, I see people adhering to Global Warming and Environmentalism as a substitute for "religion" in much the same way that previous generations adopted Marx's pseudo-scientific Historical Materialism/Determinism as something inevitable. How much did the "threat" of Global Warming form your ideas? How much was it a part of your educational experience, and education in the UK in general?

There is a class of crimes often times referred to as "victimless crimes" such as the use of an illegal drug (ex. marijuana). Is this what you mean by "no victim, no crime"?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/22/opinion/kamala-harris-islamism-senate-hearing.html Excerpts: When it comes to the pay gap, abortion access and workplace discrimination, progressives have much to say. But we’re still waiting for a march against honor killings, child marriages, polygamy, sex slavery or female genital mutilation. Sitting before the senators that day were two women of color: Ayaan is from Somalia; Asra is from India. Both of us were born into deeply conservative Muslim families. Ayaan is a survivor of female genital mutilation and forced marriage. Asra defied Shariah by having a baby while unmarried. And we have both been threatened with death by jihadists for things we have said and done. Ayaan cannot appear in public without armed guards. In other words, when we speak about Islamist oppression, we bring personal experience to the table in addition to our scholarly expertise. Yet the feminist mantra so popular when it comes to victims of sexual assault — believe women first — isn’t extended to us. Neither is the notion that the personal is political. Our political conclusions are dismissed as personal; our personal experiences dismissed as political. That’s because in the rubric of identity politics, our status as women of color is canceled out by our ideas, which are labeled “conservative” — as if opposition to violent jihad, sex slavery, genital mutilation or child marriage were a matter of left or right. This not only silences us, it also puts beyond the pale of liberalism a basic concern for human rights and the individual rights of women abused in the name of Islam. There is a real discomfort among progressives on the left with calling out Islamic extremism. Partly they fear offending members of a “minority” religion and being labeled racist, bigoted or Islamophobic. There is also the idea, which has tremendous strength on the left, that non-Western women don’t need “saving” — and that the suggestion that they do is patronizing at best. After all, the thinking goes, if women in America still earn less than men for equivalent work, who are we to criticize other cultures? This is extreme moral relativism disguised as cultural sensitivity. And it leads good people to make excuses for the inexcusable. The silence of the Democratic senators is a reflection of contemporary cultural pressures. Call it identity politics, moral relativism or political correctness — it is shortsighted, dangerous and, ultimately, a betrayal of liberal values.

There is nothing within the guidelines preventing an open, intelligent discussion of Communism on this forum. It does become apparent when someone is just "trolling", but it's pretty clear that you are not doing that. By exploring the differences between Marx and Rand, many insights can be gained. I'd go so far as to say that one can't really claim to have a detailed understanding of Objectivism without also having a detailed understanding of Marxism/Communism. What led you to originally lean towards Communism? It would be interesting to hear from someone in the UK. Is it common?

Stopping a crime involving someone else is absolutely moral. We all want to live in a society with little crime, so at times we need to step up and get involved if we someone in trouble.

Her philosophy was very much influenced by her exposure to Marxism, both in the Soviet Union and the U.S. It can be seen as primarily a refutation of it. Both are materialist in the sense that there is no appeal to the "supernatural", but a primary difference between the two has to do with epistemology (see Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology). Marx held an individual's ideas to be formed via a dialectic process between and individual and his class and it's relationship to the material means of production in any given age. Marx also saw history as unfolding to a finished state (Pure Communism). Rand's epistemology, on the other hand, does not posit any type of dialectic process in an individual's formation of knowledge. It is based sensations, percepts, concepts, the formation of abstractions-from-concretes and abstractions-from-abstractions, etc. Too much to explain here in detail. ITOE would be a good place to start if you are interested. The altruism that Rand opposes should not be confused with the "helping your neighbor raise a barn variety." In it's current, modern form, it is the virulent yet historical German idea that one's spirit may be free, but one's body belongs to the State. This can be traced back to at least Martin Luther and the German Prince's using the Protestant Reformation as a rallying cry to oppose not only the Church but also the Holy Roman Emporer. You might say that Hegel led to Hitler, and Marx - who switched the "state" to the "collective" - led to Stalin. I've been following the Global Warming debates for close to 9 years, and I see no evidence that any changes in temperature cannot be explained by natural variations within the limits of precision of measurement and a general warming trend that has been going on for a long while. But this Post would not be a place to debate it. If you want to, let's do it! The role of government is often debated among Objectivist. I think that since Objectivism does not believe that clashes are inevitable among reasonable Men (or "classes") nor is economics a zero-sum game, it is possible to create a fair and equitable government, and that one will always exist. A good government should be seen as a wonderful achievement of rational men. Rand had a great deal of respect for the U.S. Government and the Founding Fathers. I first read Rand around the age of 14 or 15, and in my youth, I was much more anarcho-capitalist than I am now. As I grew older, and began to participate in society and not just observe it, I grew to appreciate the important role that government plays in society. And per No. 4, I think it can be a net positive and not all negative. Others will have different opinions.

Eiuol, After the collapse of AP & LP with its Verificationism (which was supposed to have been a scientific analysis of language following rules similar that of mathematics), the Left threw their hands up and declared truth and falsehood to be nothing more than social consensus. You are correct that Chomsky is a little different, and I probably should not have grouped him with the others. You are being overly generous towards Derrida, but then again I'm sure that he would approve since everything is open to interpretation....

This is context-dropping in the extreme. International Socialism was predicated on Class (Owner vs. Labor) - not the Rights of Individuals as it is (and was) in the U.S. I know that you know this, so I'm not sure what point you thought you were making. Nowadays Owner Class vs. Labor Class has morphed on the Left into fractionalized groups with each clamoring to demonstrate that they are the greatest victims of oppression. Rand saw all of this coming 40 years ago. We are now living it. And each group has its own "rights", "historical interpretations", "value systems"etc. All supposedly equally valid.

Nicky, A politician who speaks out against suicide-bombing, female genital mutilation and the second-class status of women in much of the Muslim world (and so on) is not violating anyone's Rights as guaranteed under the First Amendment. We forbid all of the above in the U.S. and this is not a violation of anyone's Rights. The Left is for "Pluralism" and "Mulit-Culturalism". This is amorality . And their views have nothing to do with a deep and abiding respect for the U.S. Constitution and the ideas of our Founding Fathers. To them, truth and falsehood, right and wrong are competing narratives. This follows from the ideas of philosophers such as Derrida, Feyerabend, Kuhn, Chomsky, etc. who themselves arose to prominence after the collapse of Analytic Philosophy and Logical Positivism. Believe it or not, this has everything to do with the OP.

This is what I was trying to convey. I scare-quoted "Pro-Islam", but it would have been clearer if I had said something more along the lines of what you said.

I'll take a stab at answering this. The architectural firm I first worked at right after I graduated had people attend a seminar about how best to work with others. I was suspicious at first, but it turned out to be a very valuable experience that has served me well for 25 years. The seminar taught that people can be classed into four basic behavioral types: Driver, Analytical, Expressive, Amiable. (They pretty much mean what they sound like they mean). You can find stuff online about this. People generally have Primary and Secondary Behavioral Styles: When things are going well, and when there is conflict. Some people are Driver Drivers, some Analytical Driver, etc. When an Analytical Driver (me) has things going his way and everything is fine, I am calm, analytical, deliberative (sometimes too deliberative) and like to look at things from all angles before making decisions, etc. But when confronted about something that I think should be done, but isn't being done, I'll dig my heels in (Driver). Some years later, at a different firm, I worked on a large, 30-ish person team. The team leader (and firm Principal) was a Driver Analytical (he didn't know this, lol!). I handled remodels and another Analytical Driver handled new stores for a corporate client. We worked well as a team for about 11 years because we balanced each other. At another firm I worked for almost 2 years, on an almost daily basis, with a Driver Driver Developer. If I went into "Driver Mode" because of conflict, it wasn't very productive because we would both just butt heads. And a large part of my job involved telling this very wealthy person why he couldn't do something that he wanted to do. My solution was to provide him options instead of just saying no. I'd come to a meeting and say, "You can't do 'A', but you can do 'B', 'C', or 'D'. Learning to work with others takes respect, intelligence, and creativity. It also takes an appreciation of your own weaknesses (I'm not a big risk taker and I tend to over-analyze things). I actually benefit when I am pushed to make decisions. I've worked with hundreds over the years. Some who I initially thought were jerks ended up being very good professional relationships.

If the term "government" is understood in it's broadest sense, then any social organization will have one. This is true for a nation, a state, a county, a city, a corporation, a non-profit charity, a family, etc. Even the primate cage at the zoo has a something that works as a "government". So too a wolf pack and the herd of deer being hunted by the wolves.

Mult-Culturalism is a vicious circle. When it's taught in the U.S. (as it was for 8 years under our University Dean in Chief) it amounts to: America is no better than France, England, German, Italy, Greece, etc. When taught in Germany it's: Germany is no better than America, France, England, Italy, Greece, etc. When taught in England it's: England is no better than America, Germany, France, Italy, Greece, etc. And around-and-around it goes. Moral and Cultural Relativism. So the equation then becomes Multi-Culturalism = Globalism. Which, if you know your late 19th and early 20th Century history, is exactly what International Socialism intended all along. Rand's epistemology is so important because it's the answer to the extreme form of Nominalism to which language was reduced by the Left = Concepts have no objective meaning. Language is just a social construct. Everything is just a narrative. Edit: Does anyone every ask why the Leftist Leaders are so "pro-Islam"- even though I'd be willing to bet 95% of them are Atheists? It's because if is Islam is admitted to be objectively "bad" (and not just another competing narrative as is claimed) then it would have to be admitted that "something" objectively "good" exists.