Is this the Biggest Practical Problem with Objectivism?

Questions about Objectivism
1

Usually when people talk about problems with Objectivism, they discuss theoretical and philosophical problems.

However, there is one giant practical problem with Objectivism that has probably done more than anything else to prohibit an Objectivist society from actually existing during as long as any of us have been alive.

People with very strong group identities who think in terms of group rights (not individual rights) and may even have very strong group grievances always end up “hijacking” objectivist societies away from the atomized Objectivist individuals who comprise said societies (and I’m not just talking racial groups here, I’m talking about class groups, etc).

The USA is a case-in-point. Ayn Rand often lauded the USA as it existed during the period of roughly 1776 until roughly the beginning of the 20th century as the ‘one bright spot of history’ that existed between a ‘dark period’ before the USA’s founding and another ‘dark period’ that supposedly began sometime in the early 20th century and that continues unto this day. In our grandfathers’ day (the early 20th century) it was (here in the USA) in the form of a “class conscious proletariat” who banded together to usher in new things like the New Deal overtop of the pleas of the individualists. In our day, it’s racial groups. For instance, it’s the so-called “crybully movement” who are calling for special treatment for various racial groups on the grounds of past grivences such as slavery. And they’ve been remarkably successful. Libertarians and objectivists have been plowed under, frantically waving their hands around begging for “individual rights” while crybully grievence groups laugh in their face, truly knowing that they have the power.

Now, I’m going to say right off the bat that I don’t necessarily think that being someone with a very strong group identity is necessarily worse than being an atomized libertarian individual. In fact I think it is better (although I do think it is wrong to use that for the purpose of crybullying).

In fact, I would even go so far to say that the kind of society that Objectivists plead for eventually necessarily leads to socialism and communism. Just look at America, just look at all the places that have suffered through Communism. Are those places better off or worse off than before the Enlightenment revolutions? Was Russia better off or worse off than after the February 1917 revoluton which toppled the Tsar (which Rand was for, by the way)?

2

7 hours ago, Dustin86 said:

In fact, I would even go so far to say that the kind of society that Objectivists plead for eventually necessarily leads to socialism and communism.

No.

Culturally, philosophically, ethically society at large is still currently in the dark ages.  This has momentum which leads can lead to socialism, communism, dictatorship which you no doubt speak of. 

If an Objectivist society were ever formed, it would have been possible only because of an objectivist culture, based on an objectivist philosophy and ethics.  Because such is based on rationality and the choice to live, such is self-reinforcing.

ONCE a person knows being a parasite is wrong, altruism is evil, life is the standard and men have individual rights, only a small number of insane criminals would reject it.

By the time an Objectivist society is formed Man WILL know better, and will never look back.

 

2 Likes
3

Dustin86,

So far as I know, I can’t speak for the few organizations that promote Objectivism, such as the Ayn Rand Institute, or if they have an agenda for engaging the American political scene, or if there exists any successful attempt by any person or group. The Libertarian Party is an American political party, and I believe the Canadians have a similar party. But they do not expressly promote Objectivism. Objectivism is a philosophy, and as you rightly point out, a suitable philosophy for individualists. The fact that there has been no sustained political movement under the banner of Objectivism does not constitute any flaw, practical or otherwise, with Objectivism. Either an individual understands and embraces it, or they don’t. Some, as is often the case of this forum, hold differing views, while agreeing on the fundamentals, (or offer clarity to those seeking greater understanding.)

7 hours ago, Dustin86 said:

However, there is one giant practical problem with Objectivism that has probably done more than anything else to prohibit an Objectivist society from actually existing during as long as any of us have been alive.

 

I know of no prohibition of Objectivism. This forum is proof that an openly Objectivist society does exist.

7 hours ago, Dustin86 said:

People with very strong group identities who think in terms of group rights (not individual rights) and may even have very strong group grievances always end up “hijacking” objectivist societies away from the atomized Objectivist individuals who comprise said societies (and I’m not just talking racial groups here, I’m talking about class groups, etc).

Can you sight any specific example of this “hijacking”? I am not concerned with any identity group. Not even Objectivists.

Regarding your comments on Ayn Rand’s views on history, one cannot call into question the effectiveness of her philosophy on events prior to roughly the 1950s, because she had no explicitly stated philosophy at that time. To be sure, she agreed with the statesmen that crafted the architecture and foundation of the United States, sighting them as America’s first intellectuals. However, the Founders had no explicit or comprehensive  philosophy either. The had ideals, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, as well as numerous bodies of writings supporting their arguments, as they had many differences. But the fact that they had difference does not mean their experiment in government was in any way a failure. Ayn Rand observed the trend toward a reversal of the ideals, ideals of individual justice, separation of church and state, and limits on the powers of government over commerce and the people. As this reversal accelerated in the 1930s, there were only a few liberty-conscious intellectuals willing to point this out. Ayn Rand was one of them. The forces of collectivism are many. This does not in any way diminish the truth, that collectivism is evil, and that it runs counter to the ideals upon which the United States was built.

8 hours ago, Dustin86 said:

In fact, I would even go so far to say that the kind of society that Objectivists plead for eventually necessarily leads to socialism and communism. Just look at America, just look at all the places that have suffered through Communism. Are those places better off or worse off than before the Enlightenment revolutions? Was Russia better off or worse off than after the February 1917 revoluton which toppled the Tsar (which Rand was for, by the way)?

I’m not sure what any of this is about. As far as I know, Objectivists are not pleading for anything. “Necessarily leads to socialism and communism”? How so? Could you sort this out a little?

4

One big example is the 1917 Kerensky regime created by the liberal-democratic “February Revolution” in Russia (which Rand supported by the way), which overthrew the Tsar and aimed at a liberal-democratic individualistic society, and was all but plowed under 8 months later by the Bolshevik “October Revolution” led by “proletarians” who manifestly thought in terms of group identity, group rights, not individual rights, and had no problem toppling the Kerensky liberal-democrats. The Tsarist regime thought in terms of group rights as well, but who can deny that the “proletarians” made things 100 times worse when their class, along with their sense of class grievance, took power. (If that’s “classist” I don’t care, it’s historical truth.) And who can deny that the Kerensky liberal-democratic individualists paved the way for them to ultimately take power.

I also cited the “crybully” movement of our own times, located here in the United States and in the liberal-democratic West. Who can deny that our own Revolution here, despite whatever positives it may have had, paved the way for the crybullies. Paved the way for something that may end up far worse than what originally existed here in America (and unfortunately it looks to me to be heading that way).

My point here is that Objectivism and similar movements are just making things worse, just like things ultimately got worse in Russia because of the Kerensky people.

5

37 minutes ago, Dustin86 said:

One big example is the 1917 Kerensky regime created by the liberal-democratic

…   …   …

 

My point here is that Objectivism and similar movements are just making things worse, just like things ultimately got worse in Russia because of the Kerensky people.

There are so many governments that can be classified as roughly “liberal-democratic”. Almost all recent western European governments, and Canada, Australia etc. It is not clear to me whether you’re singling out a specific type within them, or if you’re talking about all such types?

 

6

Let me put it this way, the French Revolution was followed by the French Terror. The Russian (Kerensky liberal-democratic) Revolution was eventually followed by the Russian Terror. My view is that the American Revolution will soon indeed be followed by an American Terror as well if things do not drastically change very soon, now that the frontier of the world’s “last virgin continent” has been closed and the “New Deal” has run dry. (The Ferguson Riots, the Baltimore Riots, the Crybullies, etc. are just the beginning.) None of those Revolutions started out as a violent terror, and they were created by well-meaning people, but ultimately people who were unleashing forces far beyond even their comprehension much less their control, and nose-thumbing at everybody who opposed them as “irrational” or “reactionary”, et. al.

7

Dustin86,

From your previous posts, it seems you are laboring under some severe misunderstandings.

3 hours ago, Dustin86 said:

Let me put it this way, the French Revolution was followed by the French Terror. The Russian (Kerensky liberal-democratic) Revolution was eventually followed by the Russian Terror. My view is that the American Revolution will soon indeed be followed by an American Terror as well if things do not drastically change very soon, now that the frontier of the world’s “last virgin continent” has been closed and the “New Deal” has run dry.

The examples you are comparing were violent revolutions. Objectivism does not advocate the initiation of violence. The Mensheviks were not Objectivists. You use the present tense in reference to “the American Revolution,” and that it will be followed by an American Terror. I would hardly consider the Ferguson and Baltimore riots as anything other than race riots, such as have happened in the past, and will likely be more of in the future. They are criminal acts, not ideological movements. Socialism is an ideological movement.

4 hours ago, Dustin86 said:

 None of those Revolutions started out as a violent terror, and they were created by well-meaning people, but ultimately people who were unleashing forces far beyond even their comprehension much less their control, and nose-thumbing at everybody who opposed them as “irrational” or “reactionary”, et. al.

Your reference to “well-meaning people” is worth noting. Marx was well-meaning; Lenin was well-meaning. In fact, Hitler was well-meaning, as was Castro, Mao, and Ho Chi Min. The distinction from this rogues’ gallery, as compared to Ayn Rand, is that they were ideologically socialist, and Objectivism is absolutely opposed to any form of, or compromise with, socialism. Osama Bin Laden was well-meaning. He sought to create God’s Kingdom on Earth, as did Brigham Young, John Brown and many other historical violent religious leaders. Objectivism is opposed to religion or any form of mysticism as the basis of one’s metaphysics, and certainly not as a political basis.

As StrictlyLogic pointed out, if there is to be a “revolution” ushering in Objectivism as the prevalent norm, our society will have to undergo an enormous voluntary transformation from a society that embraces altruism, its various forms of socialism and religion, and begins to accept the evidence that supports the metaphysics and morality of Objectivism. No one ever said that popular appeal of Objectivism will be quick or easy. No one should expect it to be. I can only expect that if anyone challenges the axiomatic truth of Objectivism, I will able up to challenge. There is nothing to be gained by violence, unless I find I must resist some form of aggression.

And don’t you suppose you could give a twelve-year-old Jewish girl a break for wanting to see the Tzar overthrown? When I was twelve-years-old, I supported George McGovern; what the hell did I know.

1 Like
8

5 hours ago, Repairman said:

Your reference to “well-meaning people” is worth noting. Marx was well-meaning; Lenin was well-meaning. In fact, Hitler was well-meaning, as was Castro, Mao, and Ho Chi Min. The distinction from this rogues’ gallery, as compared to Ayn Rand, is that they were ideologically socialist, and Objectivism is absolutely opposed to any form of, or compromise with, socialism. Osama Bin Laden was well-meaning.

Repairman, it is a bit unclear if you are agreeing with the notion that Ms. Rand would agree that Marx et al were “well meaning”. Are you agreeing that those people are “well meaning”?

9

Dustin86, 

You didn’t answer my question directly, but I assume you are talking about all liberal-democracies, not just those that started in the form of revolution. If so, speaking of the French revolution, Russian revolution, etc. is a distraction. What you really seem to be saying is that liberal democracies have a tendency to move toward ever-increasing statism. Is that your proposition? If so, I think there’s a lot of evidence to support the thesis. but, perhaps that’s not the thesis you’re defending.

The logical root of any political theory is a conception of the role of government. Statist systems see the “collective good” or “equality of all” or something similar as the primary purpose of government. More liberal systems add in “the protection of individual rights”, or something similar. Some implementations also throw in something like “protection of the rights of large sub-groups/sub-populations”. However, liberal systems do not reject the idea that the government should attempt to achieve the “collective good”, in practice they also do not reject the idea that government should attempt some type of equalization of results across the population. In other words, these are “mixed-economies” rather than what Objectivism would call a “Capitalist economy”.

Since altruism is the dominant philosophy, almost without any challenge, it is easy to see how the pressure from morality will constantly work to push a mixed system toward more enforced egalitarianism. It is also easy to see how citizens who have some problem – thinking that it is the government’s job to help – will put pressure on the government to help.

But, Objectivism does not advocate a mixed system.

10

5 hours ago, Plasmatic said:

Repairman, it is a bit unclear if you are agreeing with the notion that Ms. Rand would agree that Marx et al were “well meaning”. Are you agreeing that those people are “well meaning”?

To clarify: “The good,” as defined in Objectivist terms, is absolutely not"the good" as defined by Marx or, for that matter, Jesus Christ. As I implied with my reference to the previously mentioned historical figures as a “rogues’ gallery,” I’d hoped that it would not be interpreted that Ayn Rand would have agreed with them. I can see how that meaning might have been misconstrued. I did not want to expand the post into an explanation of Objectivist morality. Rather, I hope those unfamiliar with Objectivist ideals will do their own research.

A few words on the general usage of the term, “well-meaning”: The very distinct differences of the Objectivist definition of “the good,” when compared to those of German Idealism and Western religion, present the greatest impediment to an ideal society. Nonetheless, every progressive government program, from the Interstate Commerce Act, to the Affordable Care Act, has been sold to the American public as “well-meaning,” without regard to any definition or clarity as to what the “good” actually is. Hitler and Lenin sold their ideologies to a desperate public, desperate for anything other than the status quo. Most tyrants come into power thoroughly convinced that they are the indispensable man of his time, that he is in power because God chose him, or that his people need him. If I were to explain the current successes of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, I would use these historic cases as an illustration of the desperation of voters in the United States.

11

Repairman, I am even more confused now. 

Quote

I’d hoped that it would not be interpreted that Ayn Rand would have agreed with them. I can see how that meaning might have been misconstrued.

I hope you don’t think I am accusing you of saying Ms. Rand “agreed” with Marx. I only want to know if you think that she thought he meant well? Likewise were you saying Marx, Stalin and their ilk meant well? 

12

Plasmatic,

Karl Marx did believe that he was correct in his philosophy. Stalin did believe he was doing that which was best for his people. I know this may sound absurd from the vantage point of history, but if you ask many people in Russia today, they will tell you that Stalin was a great leader. I think Ayn Rand believed these men were delusional, and in Stalin’s case, psychotic. I would say this appraisal is accurate, and that it would explain their marks in history.

13

On 4/26/2016 at 2:12 AM, Dustin86 said:

 Are those places better off or worse off than before the Enlightenment revolutions?

What you’re asking out, I think, is a matter of what is good for bringing about change or protecting one’s rights. I don’t think this stuff about strong/weak group identity matters at all here, it isn’t going to alter what someone does in an individual rights sense. I might say actually that Enlightenment ideals are the problem. The Enlightenment per se wasn’t just being pro-reason, it was also about mankind’s collective well-being. It was not egoistic really. Past that, I don’t see your point.

14

I’m not talking about Lenin and Mao and other people in the “rogues’ gallery” here. I’m talking about people like the Kerensky people in Russia and people like the US founders, people that were all lauded by Rand at one point or another in her life: some before, during, and after Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged.

The Kerensky liberal-democratic-individualist February Revolutionists obviously paved the way for the “proletarian” October Revolution. In other words, they clearly paved the way for something far worse than the “irrational” Tsarist regime that they were overthrowing.

I see the same process happening too in America, albeit it’s taking a longer time to play out. Countless numbers of times since before I was born at least, politicians here have approached a podium here speaking about how the USA has not lived up to the promise laid out in the US Declaration of Independence that “All men are created equal”. Now, I have heard Yaron Brook, director of the Ayn Rand Institute, say that that’s not supposed to mean equal outcome or equal opportunity, but merely equal under the law. And even this is a complete fiction, because what equality under the law does some destitute guy who has to rely on an overworked public defender have with some rich guy who has the money to pay for a Johnny Cochran? None. But in the end it doesn’t matter, because the promise of equality laid out in the Declaration was vague enough to mean so many things to so many different people that really it doesn’t matter what Yaron or Jefferson or anybody else in intelligensia says it’s supposed to mean. To the man on the street, his hopes of what the Declaration and the USA meant are dashed now, and now that that “free land” that existed before the closing of the frontier has run out and the New Deal has run out, Social Security, etc. is running out, now he can no longer be bought off, nothing left to dull his rage over that “broken promise of equality”, and since there is nothing more dangerous than a man whose hopes have been dashed over a broken promise, now he is going to get violent. Very violent. Hence the upcoming American Terror.

15

5 hours ago, Dustin86 said:

…, they clearly paved the way for something far worse than the “irrational” Tsarist regime that they were overthrowing.

This is a misreading of history. The breakdown of monarchy paved the way. The breakdown of monarchy begins with the growing realization that people ought to be equal before law, that people have rights, and that monarchy is a system that routinely violates people’s rights. There was no keeping this genie in a bottle, and yearning for the good old days of monarchy – which they most certainly were not.

The only question was: how would the world evolve away from monarchy? Some systems – like the British – did an above-average job of by:

  • growing the rights afforded to their citizens,
  • keeping some control over the exercise of power by the aristocracy,
  • creating a mechanism where non-aristocrat businessmen could become an alternate center of power, and
  • creating a pathway from business into aristocracy

Others, like Russia dragged their heels. 

Post WW-I, ex-soldiers, and an aroused population were ready and itching for change. In places like Britain, it came in the form of voting rights etc. In places like Russia it erupted into Communism. To blame the weak liberal-democratic movements of the time for the emergence of communism is to read history wrong. People were not clear how to fashion an alternative to monarchy (can you blame them, when most modern Americans still don’t have a clue). So, there was a fight between competing visions. In many places, the statist vision won. The short-term existence of a liberal-democracy in such places just shows the weakness of that side in the fight. It does not show that that side created the other. In contrast, the strength of the other liberal democracies flows from the strength of their liberal-democratic vision…  which flows from the fact that they had a deeper history of such movements, and had already taken many strides toward being liberal democracies.

Quote

To the man on the street, his hopes of what the Declaration and the USA meant are dashed now, and now that that “free land” that existed before the closing of the frontier has run out

This is a misreading of our current situation. The man on the street does not look to the declaration of independence. That is precisely why we have most of our political problems: because he has no clue, and would throw the declaration into the garbage bin of history given half a chance.

1 Like
16

Dustin86,

As I understand your question, your main concern is the weakness or instability of liberal-democracies, and your secondary concern is the violent events that usually follow any failed system of government. Would you say this is an accurate re-phrasing of your question?

If this is the case, it would be important to put each liberal-democracy into context. The economic stability of the newly independent United States was an important factor in the hazardous transition from colonies to a confederation of independent states. To be sure, there was no guarantee that the experimental democratic government would succeed. The predominant culture was one of self-sufficiency. That norm of self-sufficiency may be contrasted with our newly formed European counterpart, the Republic of France, under Jacobin rule. The French economy was more reliant on patronage from the aristocracy. And the aristocracy were living among the commoners, were as there were few if any aristocrats living in America. The Jacobin court held the aristocracy to blame for every problem they couldn’t solve, and the Terror followed, until chaos led to dictatorship under Napoleon Bonaparte. There were some loyalists in America, who were relocated, but no blood-bath. I wouldn’t attribute the more just and lawful transition in America entirely to the common practices of self-reliance, and the economic stability resulting from it, but it was as important as the simple ideology under which American patriots fought:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

I would disagree with you, that these words are ambiguous. It states clearly that a man has natural rights to his life and his own well-being. Of course, there were many other words written by the leading and lesser Founders describing their vision for a future government. What came out of it was a body of laws, laws that could be used to safeguard individual liberty by anyone regardless of who may hold a personal grudge against you. Now, of course, much of these ideals and laws have been revised and eroded the liberty won in 1781. And we can address those changes on another thread. As SoftwareNerd alluded to, the Revolution of 1776 was the first major movement against monarchical powers, and the movement continues today. In most cases, the transition is an awkward process. Revolutions often inspire counter-revolutions. Some societies are ill-suited for self-governance. Certainly the Russians were not successful when the Mensheviks assumed authority during one of Russia’s most disastrous wars, heaped on top of a weak industrial base, and a system reliant on aristocratic privilege. Again, economic context is important. Iraq and the Arab Spring are another example. The people were living under dictatorships, and the only institutions they trusted were family and religious ties. Hardly the foundation for a dynamic economic recovery.

I will agree with you in part, that our current economic plight is a factor contributing to the violent race riots plaguing our nation recently. But the cause of that economic plight is a matter of much more involved debate. I would dismiss the notion that the “closing of the frontiers” is in anyway a contributing factor. With today’s technology, American progress need not be limited to expanding horizontally, but that it is expanded vertically and digitally. We are building upward in the form of skyscrapers, aviation, even colonizing outer space. Entrepreneurs know no limits. And while justice in America is not perfect, it is still up to the state to prove the guilt of the accused, while it is the accused that must prove his/her innocence in many other countries.

And I agree with you, in that a disastrous conclusion awaits any country that fails to govern itself properly. We are losing our grip on self-governance. I have no illusions about America being an exceptional nation. We could fall just as so many other empires have fallen. But I don’t believe in a predetermined fate. That is why it is important that Western Civilization, especially the United States, must strive, in an evolutionary manner, rather than a revolutionary manner, more toward an ideology of individualism, capitalism, and rational self-interest. These are the ideals promoted through Objectivism.

17

I want to be very clear that this isn’t something that I gloat over, and I have no illusions about the “good old days of monarchy”, but I do feel that we have replaced bad old days with what are about to be far worse new days, just as happened in Russia/the USSR.

softwareNerd, your position would be stronger if the United States (and other liberal democracies) had successfully been able to create equality under the law. But as I explained in my last post, they weren’t, and they never will be. Rich men have gotten away with crimes, even murder, since they have the money to pay for Johnny Cochrans. Poor men have been imprisoned for decades for crimes that they obviously didn’t commit because they were represented by overworked and incompetent public defenders. They are also much, much more likely to die at the hands of police due to no fault of their own (e.g., the death of Freddy Grey). You are wrong that the common man gives little thought to the Declaration. He gives it great thought, and awaits the fulfillment of its (impossible) promise that "All men are created equal." He is now beginning to figure out that, at least under the current system of individualistic liberal democracy, this promise shall never be fulfilled. And now with what seems to be permanent joblessness and marginalization for so many people, now his rage can no longer be contained, hence the recent riots we have witnessed. These riots are just the beginning.

My view is that if inequality under the law is inevitable (which it is) then don’t promise people equality under the law, because there is no more dangerous man than a man who gets his hopes up because of promises and then those hopes are dashed when those promises are broken. Such a man has a strong tendency to violence, much stronger than because of simple abuses alone.

18

3 hours ago, Dustin86 said:

…no more dangerous man than a man who gets his hopes up because of promises and then those hopes are dashed when those promises are broken.

Like who? I can think of people like Stalin maybe, but I don’t think he got mad because he got his hopes up. Che could be another example, but he lived very well off when he was younger, it’s not that he was given false promises. If you mean things like riots, either they end quickly because it’s more like a childish outburst, or they are led by the people I mentioned above who want more than just equality under the law.

19

4 hours ago, Dustin86 said:

Rich men have gotten away with crimes, even murder,…

No. You’re making perfect the enemy of the good. Stick with comparative politics if you’re comparing actual systems in actual practice. The justice system in western countries is an order of magnitude better than the alternatives. 

You say the common man thinks about the Declaration of Independence. Where do you get this data? Voters love to blame their politicians, but they need to look in the mirror. The really guilty people in the U.S. are the voters. They sit near the base of the causal chain of action. It is the American voter who has brought the country to its current state.

20

5 hours ago, softwareNerd said:

You’re making perfect the enemy of the good.

Yes I am but guess what? When it says in the Declaration that “All men are created equal” and that this is made so by a perfect creator-god, and that monarchy was standing in the way of this creator-god’s promise being realized, and that the republic of the United States of America was where this creator-god’s promise was to be finally put into practice in human affairs, the common man took that very, very seriously. People said to themselves, “Hallelujah, my ship has come in!”

Look, all that really matters here is that in the mind of the common man, the promise was not fulfilled. And his hopes are dashed over what he feels is a broken promise. And just like I said, there is no more dangerous man than a man who gets his hopes up because of promises and then those hopes are dashed when those promises are broken.