Good Lord, what is it with Objectivists trying to condemn and attack each other like this.
It is a downer for sure, particularly when members on both sides of such schisms want to promote their shared views outside the movement. Then, it becomes disappointing because time spent on “in fighting” is time not spent fighting externally. Also, one comes to a point when one thinks: “wow! there are 5 times the Objectivists than when I first read Rand”, then three schisms later the group with which you really interact with is down to (say) a sixth of its peak!
You say you’re relatively new to the Objectivist “culture”. Still, you might know that schisms are really nothing new. I’m not trying to depress you further 
, but just the opposite. The fact is that through all this, the number of people reading Rand has continued to grow, and Rand’s influence has not ebbed. Further, its a pretty good guess that Objectivists interact more with other Objectivists today than they did two decades ago. It’s a bit like a boom-bust cycle, with an upward secular trend.
Also, consider examples from history. Islam has Shia and Sunni denominations, and there are regions where these two see each other as primary enemies, and others (infidels) as being more of “enemies in theory”. Within Shia and Sunni, there are further divisions. Similarly, look at the Christian church: it divided into Catholic and others over issues that would seem really silly to outsiders. Then, came Martin Luther and another major schism. And, look at the U.S. today with all sorts of independent churches. It doesn’t seem to harm the core Christian cause. The Christians have had an uphill fight against reason-based philosophies, but I doubt they’d have done “better” if they’d all stayed under the umbrella of the Catholic church. The same pattern of fracturing and growth can be seen across most other major religions. Even Buddhism has its schism.
In general, some of these historical schisms are based on a disagreement about some core idea, while others are based on personality and politics. Of course, often the two are wrapped together: something that would have remained a disagreement on which collaborators agree to disagree can become a schism when personalities grate or when one or both sides are jockeying for power and influence.
I’m not trying imply that schism are pointless or that they’re “just politics” etc. On the contrary, some schisms end up helping. the obvious effect of a schism is that – when the dust dies down – each side feels that it has cut off a group of people who are diverting it from its core business. When the schism is in progress, things can get really petty: people can focus on much more than just the core argument… they can get personal about all sorts of personal things. It really is pretty sad when one sees a person you thought was sensible being petty and irrational. I know Objectivist friends who have stopped claiming to be Objectivists on forums etc. because they don’t want to argue about whether the label really ought to apply to them or not. Either way, it is not going to change their philosophy.
Basically, every schism among Objectivists has been based on one of two things: sometimes a group sees another group as being dogmatic (i.e. as trying to limit Objectivism to some specific concrete), and thinks Objectivism as a movement should distance itself from dogmatists. At other times, a group sees another group as being subjectivist (i.e. as trying to expand Objectivism to support ideas that are antithetical to it) , and thinks Objectivism as a movement should distance itself from subjectivists.
From my years of interacting with Objectivists, I have come across some who are dogmatic and some who are subjectivist. I have less in common with these people than I have with some more rational non-Objectivists. I think Objectivism as a movement would be well rid of both errors. Mostly, it seemide futile to argue with these folk: there is some deep epistemological-divide which I’m not competent to bridge.
It is depressing when personality and pettiness play a large role in the schisms. this happens all too often. I’ve seen enmities start over whether some view is too subjectivist or dogmatic, but morph into personal insults about what papers someone reads, about past friendships, and even people’s weight! Then you have one side going out of its way to scorn and mock any little mistake of the other side. That’s the type of thing that depresses me. I think the only solution is to constantly remind oneself not to let other people set one’s agenda, to remind oneself that one is not going to let the tail wag the dog, and to remind oneself that happiness comes from a focus on values rather than on dis-value. Further, I remind myself that when the dust settles, Objectivism as a movement will be stronger as long as the right people still continue to do the right thing.
I don;t think one is going to end schism. I think the healthy solution is to deal with them by encouraging splits. Years ago, I’d have thought this was the worst thing possible: fragmenting the movement. However, I now think this is the healthiest approach. Like the various denominations in some religions, it might actually allow each group to pursue its aims more peacefully, and without having to deal with the other. The net effect might be to promote, rather than to detract from, any common goals they still share.
So, for instance, if there is some serious schism on a forum, I think there comes a point when the healthiest thing is to set up a separate forum. When one chat room gets too petty and personal, it might be healthiest to set up another. In the past, I have offered to help people set such things up: not because I love “helping the competition” but because I think it is healthier than trying to get along when one has crossed a certain line.
