Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Something you might enjoy...

Rate this topic


Maken
 Share

Recommended Posts

I was looking for some info about monopolies and Ayn Rand's view on them in the free market and I stumbled upon a Communist website (much like this one but for Communism obviously). Curious, I read their FAQ that defines Communism. Below is a link, I find the glaring holes in the theory and its mutated idea of "morality" to be quite funny. How many gaps can you spot?!!?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/communismi-t42451/index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was looking for some info about monopolies and Ayn Rand's view on them in the free market and I stumbled upon a Communist website (much like this one but for Communism obviously). Curious, I read their FAQ that defines Communism. Below is a link, I find the glaring holes in the theory and its mutated idea of "morality" to be quite funny. How many gaps can you spot?!!?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/communismi-t42451/index.html

Wow. Apparently, this person is able to pinpoint the existance of "classes" back to 25,000 years ago. :confused:

Wait, pure "democracy"? As in, "if everyone hates gays, there will be laws against gay marriage?" Good god, I have to convince conservatives that we don't actually live in a democracy when it comes to this!

No thanks, Communism!

I'm sorry, I'll have to wait until tomorrow to tackle every stupid aspect of this post.

Edited by Black Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My particular favorite-

"What i'm trying to say is don't look at actions and things with value, this is the capitalist way of thinking. We need to look at actions and thing for what they are, we do what needs to be done, not for what we can get out of it."

So...then...living without value is the "communist way?" I couldn't have said it better myself.

and, in what possible universe can "what needs to be done" not be determined by "what we can get out of it?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw this argument, made to explain what a communist society might do if a product was invented by one individual that would help society immensely (a vaccine or something), and he demanded huge payment in exchange for it. It goes like this:

"But assuming that your scenario could actually happen, the society will do the same thing a capitalist corporation might do if one of its employees in the R&D department decides to hold his new invention for ransom: they will take the matter to court."

I think the underlying problem with this argument is that the communist decided that the new product had already existed in some unexplainable, immaterial way, but the inventor was unjustly keeping it to himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to mention a scientist working for a corporation is working under a contract they made explicit consent to under explicit terms at the time they were hired saying they wouldn't try to keep the thing they made to themself or demand an extra huge fee. There was no kind of contractual dispute for the court to settle like in a capitalist society with that R&D scientist because there was no real contract in this imaginary communist situation. So whereas in the capitalist situation somebody volunteered to do something and is just being made to keep their word, the communist situation it seems pretty clear just plain says they intend to force you to do what they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found this interesting:

To begin with, communism is a society without bosses or servants, without superiors or subordinates, without masters or slaves — in short, communism is a society without classes and the stress, conflict and antagonisms that go with the existence of classes.

Let us consider different possible interpretations of this. First, let us be naively literal. No bosses? So a very radical form of anarchism, in which no person has any influence upon any other human being in any way. After all, to even speak to another person is to impose one's thoughts upon him. This is echoed in more mainstream communist arguments against free market freedom of speech. This would be amazing. Every individual has to live equidistant from every other, so that no individual can influence another. As soon as one person decides he's tired of hanging out on his plot of land, I guess he'll go take something from his neighbor and wham-bam government established (after all, he will now be wielding force against another person, and so de facto be the one organizing resources [namely, taking them for himself] and controlling the use of coercion [he goes around doing whatever he wants]).

Well that didn't last long. Maybe we need a notion of boss and superior that's a little thicker-skinned. Let us say that a boss is someone who uses coercion against those who initiate violence--in this sense, a CEO wouldn't be a boss. But, er, yeah, this is already too much like capitalism since we're letting there be CEOs and punishing all and only the initiation of violence. Let's try again.

Well maybe the sense in which there is no boss, is the sense in which EVERYBODY is a boss! Everybody votes about what laws go into place, with uninhibited control over every aspect of everyone else's life, as well as the means (and ends! ... Communists always seem to leave out that part...) of production. Now we're cooking with gas, this is starting to look like the communism we know and love. I wonder why it wasn't worded this way in the article. *shrug* Anyway, in this utopia, the religious majority of the population will undoubted want to put an end to homosexuality, atheistic college education, and... well... eh, this is kind of embarrassing. They'll probably vote communism away in favor of theocracy. Hmm... In order for Communism to perpetuate itself, maybe a different notion of "boss" is still needed.

...

...

OH! I get it! There is no boss from the perspective of the author, because HE has no boss--because he IS the boss! Now it makes sense. He just dictates the way he wants things, and is hoping he'll convince enough dolts that it's a good lovey-dovey plan for the betterment of everyone everywhere, even though he hasn't the slightest credentials for running the cash register at a nickel-and-dime store let alone all of the industries and lives of a nation. NOW it makes sense, NOW I understand communism. Thanks! :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It says that police will not be needed in a "communist" society because everyone will be happy.

Well, Objectivists argue that laissez faire capitalism will reduce the need for policemen, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have them. And in the rare event that we need police, we're not going to have individuals initiate force unless they have the authorization to do so.

If everyone is free to do whatever they want, and nobody can own property, then our resources will depleted faster, for one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For years, I've thought that these ideas were limited only to intellectuals and Soviet Officials between 1917 and 1950. I have had trouble believing anyone would, in this day and age, say anything as stupid as "Saving up? What makes you think you will be able to save up under communism? I'm afraid that will not be possible, due to the absence of money. There will be no money for you to save." or that remark about "Value."

For years, I've thought that Ayn Rand's villains were stereotypes of ideas, not actual people or people who might actually exist. I am completely floored. Someone please, god, please! tell me that these are just Ayn Rand fans sneaking onto a leftist board to try and discredit it!

I mean... God, how... where did the-... *st-st-stutter*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd still like to know how the person who made this post found out that "classes" existed 25,000 years ago, which predates the earliest known part of the neolithic revolution

Maybe he was referring to animal classes, aka the food chain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe he was referring to animal classes, aka the food chain?

Well, he was implying that throughout the 5 million years that humanity existed, 25,000 of the most recent had classes. I doubt they're referring to the trophic levels.

I guess this person just doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, he was implying that throughout the 5 million years that humanity existed, 25,000 of the most recent had classes. I doubt they're referring to the trophic levels.

I guess this person just doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

You assumed he did?

:dough:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You assumed he did?

:dough:

Perhaps I hoped that if someone was advocating a system that even most brainwashed people who "thought it was good in theory" realized how horrible it was in practice, that they would at least bother to look presentable. Part of that means not being way off about objective reality that a public high school should have taught you. I guess not.

Edited by Black Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If everyone’s basic needs — good food, decent housing, worthwhile education, etc. — are met, what basis is there for most of the crime in society?

Define 'good food', 'decent housing', 'worthwhile education'. Who gets to define? What if I don't like their definition of 'good food', etc.

Al Capone's basic needs of food and housing were certainly met, yet he continued to commit crime. Hmmm. Go figure?

Not even worth reading any further.

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Define 'good food', 'decent housing', 'worthwhile education'. Who gets to define? What if I don't like their definition of 'good food', etc.

Al Capone's basic needs of food and housing were certainly met, yet he continued to commit crime. Hmmm. Go figure?

Not even worth reading any further.

Bob

Hahahaha, or the various "white collar crime CEO's" that liberals keep complaining about. Their needs of food and housing were met, and they had the money to bring their kids to college, and they still committed "crimes".

Of course, in all fairness, half of those crimes were "Avoiding heavy regulations on industry".

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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...