A debate in Russian forum

[lex_aver]

I am not proposing a new debate, but rather want to post my response at a forum to get acclaim and advices.

So, the subject is classic: Objectivism vs. Socialism. I do not put the post I'm answering at here, because I quoted it fully in my own post. I'll gladly put all previous posts at demand. If this topic is inappropriate here, feel free to move it to appropriate section. So, let's begin!

I did not expected such comment. I mean, I wait for two days before responding, so emotions don't get in my way, and comrade Mao {my opponent's nick is Great Mao, I refered to him as comrade sarcastically} just pours a pile of dirt on me!

It is very interesting that this usually calm and civil man reacts on my sentence about trade that way. I think I've found the root of the problem.

And are YOU worthy of help?

Recently the word "help" is used as some kind of idol. I assume that by help you mean selfless donation of money to the ones who lack them. Then listen, I will rather die than ask anybody to give me money selflessly. That would mean that I disvalue either me (assuming that I cannot repay the debt) and the one who donates money (because money is a product of reason, and I ask him to exchange it for nothing).

Man who defecates on those who are unlucky in life does not deserve help

Are you equating defecation with the claim that no one has right to put his hands in my wallet without my consent? Only one man defecates here - you, on my rights. And the reason for you to declare me rightless sacrificial animal is not my vice, but my ability.

Do you know that man is social-biological creature? Man must live in rallied society. It is rallied society that have brought man to progress, and individualism is a cave instinct, a degradation {I must say that what I did not expect to hear is this. Man was really willing to expose truth about socialism }

Ant is a social creature. Wolf is a social creature. Weaver is a social creature. They instinctively act together as a part of one machine - their "society" (it is not society in the human sense of the word, no matter how much you want it) and they cannot exist outside their society.

Man is a different case. He is different from animals in one property that crashes your socialist theory and it is hatred to which that you've just confessed in. This property is rationality. Man does not act on instinct, he thinks, chooses among alternatives by his judgement.

Man who invented the weel did it using his mind, not minds of others who couldn't do this. Man who invented telephone (Alexander Graham Bell is his name) did it himself too, not with minds of those who couldn't think of nothing better than pigeon post. Man who created first automobile (his name was Karl Benz) invented it using his mind, not minds of others who thought automobiles were impossible.

Any of these men could survive on uninhabited island, but none of them could survive in a society in which he would be considered criminal for every cent he has that his neibour has not, in which he wuold be deprived of everything others don't have and in which every man of lesser ability could use his superiority as a right to friuts of his reason. Society that doesn't recognise his right to live for himself. Society that you offer as an ideal.

Reply to myself:

BTW, I've figured out what caused your burst. It is claim that men can deal with each other as equal, when no one bends and no one is bent. It is claim that there exists not only sacrifice and expropriation, but also one productive, noble kind of human relationships - trade.

Edited August 8, 2007 by lex_aver

[K-Mac]

Well I think you stuck it to him pretty good.

I sure would like to hear that in Russian with all the passion that I'm sure both of you put into your arguments.

[RationalBiker]

I concur that you offered a fitting refutation to his weak claims.

[DarkWaters]

Lex, great job!

I meant to reply to this earlier.

[Tenure]

Good work Lex, keep up the good fight!

I like how you tackled his claims, pointing out how he was equating exploitation/abuse with freedom. That's the problem I have in these sorts of debates - just pointing out the lunacy that the other side is bringing. Always rationally explaining why they are wrong and I am right, but always forgetting to point out that one important point.

Good work on that.

[lex_aver]

Thank you, Tenure. I'm glad that my progress in debate is admired: I couldn't have win such debate even half a year ago. Now, I have my opponent refusing to argue more.

However, now my skills are up to even greater test, for now my opponent is very experienced hardcore Leninist. I have some success so far: he is already evading my main argument to him. For your amusement, here is our complete debate so far. Comments, advices and praise are always welcomed.

Rjurikovich:

Inventors are rarely individualists. They rarely sell their inventions. Usually, completely different people do. For interest, read about who invented telegraph and what was really invented by Morse. {I did, telegraph was invented in 1775, Morse invented very cheap and high range electric telegraph, so he did invent telegraph}

If [inventors] were collectivsts, they would never make any telephone or automobiles, for the fear of harming interests of telegraphists and horse farmers

You have very strange image of collectivists. For them, progress of the Society in whole {capitalization is mine } is not comparable to interests of telegraphists nad horse farmers. {He actually makes semi-valid point here, there is no conflict of interests here, but according to collectivism it is}

Alexei Averchenko:

Inventors are rarely individualists. They rarely sell their inventions. Usually, completely different people do. For interest, read about who invented telegraph and what was really invented by Morse.

First, one example doesn't mean anything. Second, [irrelevant part of the post not worthy of translation]

But the point here is not about concrete inventors. You claim that inventors are rarely individualists, in other words, that individualism hinders ability to invent, and collectivism, on the other hand, fosters it. Nothing can be farther from truth.

To become an inventor, man must posess one very important quality, the quality, which, contrary to your words, is the basis of individualism and which collectivists tried to destroy on all course of mankind's history. This quality is independence of mind. Quoting Ayn Rand, {I have to retranslate here words, they are from "This is John Galt speaking" chapter of Atlas Shrugged} "Independence is acknowledgement of the fact that responsibility for a judgement is on you. Nothing can help you to escape it, no one can think for you just as no one can live for you. And the lowest form of self-humiliation and self-destruction is submission of your mind to other's, accepting authority over your brain, its claims as facts, its propositions as truth, its commands as a proxy between your conciousness and existence". No invention could be done by a man who submitted his mind to others. A man who thinks that something is true just because others think so will never even try to create it. But it's exactly what collectivism demands man to do. That's why even a man who lives in collectivist society and accepting its dogmas as true can invent anything only by summoning his last shreds of independence and self-esteem. That's why the moments of making his creation he will call the greatest in his life - because these are the only moments when he lived.

Rjurikovich:

[irrelevant answer to irrelevant part of my post]

But the point here is not about concrete inventors. You claim that inventors are rarely individualists, in other words, that individualism hinders ability to invent, and collectivism, on the other hand, fosters it. Nothing can be farther from truth.

I haven't claimed that. {Your first evasion here, he? Fear me! *laughs evilly*}

To become an inventor, man must posess one very important quality, the quality, which, contrary to your words, is the basis of individualism and which collectivists tried to destroy on all course of mankind's history. This quality is independence of mind.

Independence from what? There is no abstract {he meant contextless} independence. Freeing man from the part of his troubles allows him to be more free in realisation of his other possibilities. {By God, this man's posts are getting so hard translate } The hardest dependence of mind is dependence from advertisement. {lol}

Quoting Ayn Rand, "Independence is acknowledgement of the fact that responsibility for a judgement is on you. Nothing can help you to escape it, no one can think for you just as no one can live for you. And the lowest form of self-humiliation and self-destruction is submission of your mind to other's, accepting authority over your brain, its claims as facts, its propositions as truth, its commands as a proxy between your conciousness and existence".

Responsibility for one's judgements and actions is even higher in collectivism.

{Get ready to laugh} Man must know more, he must know all about something and something about everything, care not only about himself, his selfish interests, but also about interests of the society.

No invention could be done by a man who submitted his mind to others. A man who thinks that something is true just because others think so will never even try to create it.

To advertisement, for example {What on Earth is that supposed to mean?}

But it's exactly what collectivism demands man to do.

No, collectivism demands knowledge, initiative, self-sacrifice, goodness. It demands deep and creative knowledge.

That's why even a man who lives in collectivist society and accepting its dogmas as true can invent anything only by summoning his last shreds of independence and self-esteem. That's why the moments of making his creation he will call the greatest in his life - because these are the only moments when he lived.

God, bless the simple. {Is he suggesting that I am simplisitc? He probably didn't see a quote from Why Act on Principle in my signature}

To be continued...

[lex_aver]

... Immediately (I was afraid of not fitting into quotations limit)

I haven't claimed that

Yes, you did:

Inventors are rarely individualists

Independence from what?

Independence from others, it is clear from the quote I gave.

Freeing man from the part of his troubles allows him to be more free in realisation of his other possibilities.

On whose expense do you want to free man from his troubles. Who is this poor Atlas on whose shoulders do you want put others' trouble? {Direct reference to Atlas Shrugged, just to scare him a bit }

The hardest dependence of mind is dependence from advertisement.

Don't be pathetic.

Responsibility for one's judgements and actions is even higher in collectivism.

Oh, not at all. In collectivism failure doesn't at all means loss for a man. Rather, it gives him right to leach on those who achived success.

Man must know more, he must know all about something and something about everything

Interesting rhethorics here!

care not only about himself, his selfish interests, but also about interests of the society.

Now, who is society? {Borrowed that line from Ayn Rand}

No invention could be done by a man who submitted his mind to others. A man who thinks that something is true just because others think so will never even try to create it.

You didn't answer to this, if not count your non-sense about advertisement as an answer. Rebutt or agree.

No, collectivism demands knowledge, initiative, self-sacrifice, goodness. It demands deep and creative knowledge.

Collectivism demands man to be initiative, and than says that one man is nothing and demands him to treat others' will as law.

Collectivism demands man to be good, and then says that to be good means to be selfless, which means to accept sacrifice and acceptance of sacrifice as the only possible social relationships.

Collectivism demands knowledge from man, and than says that truth is a question of consensus and demands to accept others' opinion as an absolute.

Collectivism self-sacrifice from man, and it is the only thing it demands honestly. According to collectivism, man is sacrificial animal.

That's why even a man who lives in collectivist society and accepting its dogmas as true can invent anything only by summoning his last shreds of independence and self-esteem. That's why the moments of making his creation he will call the greatest in his life - because these are the only moments when he lived.

Rebutt or agree.