Objectivism and Political Action

Political Philosophy
21

You said a lot Don, so I’m responding to the overall ideas you conveyed. I’ve nothing to add to 2046’s post, the post is a good summary of my thoughts.

There isn’t only peaceful or physical force means of political change. I think it’d be short-sighted to stick to those options. There are powerful actions to take which pull at social norms of acceptability. By silencing, I mean something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w211KOQ5BMI. Not peaceful, but not violent either, all while making a clear message of protest. It would silence a dissenting opinion for sure, but if the dissenting people are emotionalists or all around irrational, I see no moral advantage to still talk to them by persuasion and substantive argument. I emphasize “dissenting people” there, as some dissenters are quite rational - people I deem to be mistaken due to differing knowledge I’d make sure to be a voice of reason towards them.  

I said before persuasion is a necessary piece of political success. You must remember though that the dissenters are also attempting persuasion, at least some recruitment. If a Trump rally was filled with people shouting to deport all illegals and muslims, going in to persuade them otherwise would be fruitless. It seems like you would opt to do nothing directed at the rally. Write an article, maybe. Why not -add- something more? Trump supporters aren’t fringe moonbats, it’s a real thing, so a protest like playing music really loud looks pretty wise. It takes careful judgment to do it properly. Importantly, it suggests moral strength, pride. Prideful that you can push back against irrationality.

You’re right that “going Ragnar” could be suicidal. That’s an argument about strategy. Most of what you said was aimed at moral opposition non-persuasion, except in a dire situation like living under tyranny. The only justification for that belief I can think of is Rawlsian reflective equilibrium. To be more specific, it’s thinking that people start with a set of beliefs, and being faced with dissenting beliefs leads one closer to agreement or the truth. Society would eventually reach equilibrium through gradual give and take. So if you agree with that, it wouldn’t make sense to use non-persuasion. Is that something you agree with? Whichever your answer is, please tell me in more detail your moral basis to your stance. So far, it sounds like your arguments are about preferring not to get up and yell sometimes, or a psychological argument that it’d repel dissenters (optics, as you phrased it).

“In that context then, the key question is not: “how do I change society”, but “how do I achieve personal happiness”.” -sNerd
To me, it’s the opposite. I’ve always been focused on personal improvement of myself. Because of that, I see actions besides persuasion as really important. It leads me to supporting more short-term actions than only long-term strategies. I’d totally set up a protest filled with loud music. Not to persuade people per se, or to pull people to my side, but to bring change faster and effectively. Change is possible in our lifetimes. Well, not if we -only- play the long-game.

 

22

Re: “It’s too early”

Meanwhile, in the non-objectivist world…

image.jpeg.adc45b7bc63fbb08e54c5eb37f458eee.jpeg
image.jpeg.adc45b7bc63fbb08e54c5eb37f458eee.jpeg1200×800 296 KB

23

2 hours ago, 2046 said:

Re: “It’s too early”

Meanwhile, in the non-objectivist world…

  1. As intimidating as that photo is, it really is not at all more intimidating than average if you consider various other scenes across a few past generations. 

2. Well, “people are idiots” does not imply “I can convince them or force them to be non-idiots”.

  1. With that said, if activism is on interest to you, and you enjoy “living in the future” by 'fighting for it today", I can see that too. Purpose is a good thing.
24

6 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I’d totally set up a protest filled with loud music. Not to persuade people per se, or to pull people to my side, but to bring change faster and effectively.

I don’t understand what you mean. You say the music will not pull people to your side, but it will bring change faster. What’s the mechanism here?

1 Like
25

Oh, I meant it wasn’t a motivator for me to want to act, although it probably would  work well as a form of protest - if I had a plan alongside it.

26

19 hours ago, softwareNerd said:

2. Well, “people are idiots” does not imply “I can convince them or force them to be non-idiots”.

I meant to address this post. Fine for 1 and 3. But for 2… We were already talking about not working to persuade people, where you are making no effort to make people smarter or wiser. “Some people are irrational idiots, so sometimes it is necessary to cause change without regard to persuasion.” That’s more like it.

27

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 “Some people are irrational idiots, so sometimes it is necessary to cause change without regard to persuasion.” That’s more like it.

Yes, I understand. That’s why I said “or force them”.
The point is that just because people are XYZ, does not imply that you can get your way using force. 
Even if force is the only way you can get some people to do something, it does not follow that you can get your way with them using force.

28

Well, as 2046 was saying, and me, persuasion and force aren’t the only options. The link I showed before is neither, which I assume is a type of protest/response that Don finds morally bad and/or bad strategy, based on his earlier comments.

29

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

The link I showed before is neither, which I assume is a type of protest/response that Don finds morally bad and/or bad strategy, based on his earlier comments.

Certainly bad strategy.

On 7/12/2016 at 10:57 AM, Eiuol said:

…a protest like playing music really loud looks pretty wise. It takes careful judgment to do it properly. Importantly, it suggests moral strength, pride. Prideful that you can push back against irrationality.

Playing music really loud does not look pretty wise to me. It does not suggest moral strength or pride to me, to try to make it impossible for your opposition to voice their views. It suggests cowardice to me, and an inability to compete with arguments or reason.

1 Like
30

44 minutes ago, DonAthos said:

Playing music really loud does not look pretty wise to me. It does not suggest moral strength or pride to me, to try to make it impossible for your opposition to voice their views. It suggests cowardice to me, and an inability to compete with arguments or reason.

I provided reasons that this isn’t true. I also explained that reasons you gave are about preferences and appearances. Those aren’t justifications.

31

On 7/12/2016 at 0:01 AM, 2046 said:

Yes Ayn Rand wrote novels, but what about the character Ragnar Danneskjold? 

 

Isn’t Ragnar Danneskjold an example of Objectivist “revolutionary literature”, in a certain sense? Although Rand never described any concrete battle plans (at least nothing comparable to Rules for Radicals or the Anarchist’s Cookbook), she clearly portrayed them in her warrior-philosopher.

So, yes; “what about Ragnar” is the proper point to make on multiple levels. That is the place to start.

 

 

Ragnar Danneskjold was certainly not a pacifist. He knew that “he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword” - and he was willing to assist them with it.

However, neither was he actually a violent person. He didn’t enjoy the bloodshed; he didn’t run around, shooting all the looters and the moochers; he didn’t use his guns in anger and he put them away as soon as he could safely do so (even stopping to evacuate the crews from conquered ships before he sank them).

The evacuations, in particular, speak volumes. I have never been in a pitched battle, but if I were -if I was actually fighting for my life- I’m not sure I would be able to stop fighting while my enemies were still breathing. I’m not sure I would care to, either.

 

He used force with more respect and temperance than most Christians use for the Name of the Lord God.

 

That’s something we should aspire to, if we’d like our effect on society to result in any Objective “good”.

32

On 7/11/2016 at 0:26 PM, Eiuol said:

Silencing as in forms of verbal protest or interfering with others so that the other side isn’t heard.

 

Silencing people (violently or not) is a bad goal to pursue.

 

Suppose you and I were standing in a kitchen with a bowl of cookie dough and miscellaneous baking supplies - but no way to communicate. We’re both severely autistic, so neither of us can comprehend speech or any sort of body language. If someone pointed at something, neither of us would know the meaning of that gesture; we would only see a finger. However, both of us know how to bake cookies and have a fierce desire to eat some.

*This is a gross oversimplification, for the sake of the argument*

If either of us were alone in the kitchen, we’d have no difficulty in acquiring the value which is cookies. However…

If I see you reach for the cookie dough then I’ll have to protect it. I have no idea what you’re trying to do and you have no way of telling me. If you see me pick up the pan, you’ll have to take it away. I might intend to wedge a door open with it (or something similarly not-cookie-related), for all you know, and there is no way for me to enlighten you.

Without communication, the very fact that both of us want the same thing would prevent either of us from achieving it.

 

Without communication, there can be no cooperation. Without cooperation, nothing good can come from forming a society in the first place and this discussion is moot. So it’s important that we respect the value of communication, even when it’s used in ways we dislike.

 

The alternative is a world without cookies.

33

Harrison, your point is true as far as the other party is to a degree rational. I was talking about when one party is irrational. Not just wrong on some points, but deeply irrational. Such people exist. Compare that to a person totally wasted and drunk. You don’t persuade them, you don’t reason with them. You treat them accordingly. On some topics, people are just as irrational as a drunk. So you disregard them - whether you shut down their protest (without force), mock them, or ignore them, is a strategic decision. Judging with mockery, say, is a way to offer resistance to irrationality. Responding with force only depends on if your life is under threat. They are people already operating outside reason. 

34

9 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 On some topics, people are just as irrational as a drunk. So you disregard them - whether you shut down their protest (without force), mock them, or ignore them, is a strategic decision. Judging with mockery, say, is a way to offer resistance to irrationality. Responding with force only depends on if your life is under threat. They are people already operating outside reason. 

Judging one’s opponent as irrational is subjective, until you have argued said-opponent down to the last syllogism. If we are to assume that the Objectivist argument has the strength to overpower said-opponent, then there is no reason for shutting down the debate. Having proved your argument as true, the opponent must withdraw, forfeit, or admit defeat. But they must be allowed their freedom of speech. Force by overwhelming audible volume is still a form of force. If one’s revolution is to prove a sustainable success, you have merely forced your opponent to lowering his volume to a level only circulated among members of the counter-revolution. (At this point, I don’t care to list the many counter-revolutions, or acts of repression against dissenting and/or unpopular opinion-makers, from Socrates to heresy, to the present, but only to suggest that counter-revolutions do happen. It would be naive not to expect them.) Once you have “silenced” your opposition, they become “victims” of your force. You may think you have silenced them, but they will only use your oppression to their advantage in their argument against you. While I agree that (rational) mockery is one of the most useful tactics, the opportunity for your opponent’s response must be guaranteed, especially if the revolution promotes morality in Objectivist terms, otherwise you have undermined your desired society of objectivity.

For example, let’s take the matter of anti-mysticism as a desirable Objectivist social norm. If you were to shout down your religious opponents, or in anyway deny them their opportunity to speak their piece, you will only alienate and enrage them. You may momentarily hush them up; you may go through the motions of re-education. And rather than re-educate them, and their children, they will only pass their cherished beliefs along down the generations, until the day of their reprisal. Judging by our current political climate, religion will not go away easily.

If we examine some of the more sustained, successful, and least violent revolutions in history, we will notice a certain “ground-work” or foundation preparing society for the sudden changes. The industrial revolution, perhaps the best example, emerged from a time of reason brought about by a change of theology, and discovery brought about through innovation approved by the ruling classes. And yet, Luddites resisted. The American Revolution emerged from a society well accustomed to religious dissent, free-trade, free-speech, and more than one hundred years of a concept, known as, The Rights of Man. To be sure, the monarchists resisted violently, and in five years were violently defeated by those who believed in an untried form of government. And yet, church leaders resisted the idea of separation of church and state. The Civil Rights Movement (circa 1945-1965) emerged from a society that had seen the virtues and accepted the value of African-American lives through their valor in war and their contributions in sports and entertainment. And yet, the racists resisted. They still resist, but so too do the Luddites and the church leaders. Nonetheless, I am reasonably confident that in spite of America’s curious and often irrational trends in politics, the core values of the industrial revolution, American Revolution, and equal protection under the law for all minorities will be norms for many generations against the wishes of dissenters. The revolutions that succeed often do so because they were right, and the public was prepared.

If we are to ever witness an Objectivist victory over irrational mystic, collectivist, and socialist norms, it will be a victory achieved only after the establishment of a base of majority, consisting of people who believe in free-minds and free-markets. To the specifics of these ideals, I leave to those future generations. For now, let’s say you want a revolution. As an important part of the process, people will need to be informed, one might say, re-educated. Re-education under Chairman Mao and Pol Pot didn’t end well. In fact, I don’t think you can change the norms of society until the young are educated properly, rather than re-educated as adults. The ideas of an Objectivist Revolution will only succeed when people willingly accept them. People must arrive at the truth under their own efforts and volition. To force any ideas on anyone is folly.  

The education of a society of true individuals will begin with parents who see themselves as individuals. Teach your children well. I witnessed a generation of people who believed themselves enlightened and right, the New Left, force a (believed-to-be) revolutionary set of values onto the American political landscape. The results are the formation of otherwise unique individuals into diverse collective-identity groups, and an expansion of the social welfare state. In my opinion, neither bode well for the future, nor does the rise of the counter-revolutionary Christian Right. The downward trajectory of politics will not change direction until a properly educated public demands the proper change. And that change cannot be explained on a bumper-sticker, nor blasted through an amplifier. The revolution will not be televised. It may have all ready started with forums such as this one. All said, I absolutely support an Objectivist revolution. Long live the revolution.

3 Likes
35

  1. I would need to argue against Donald Trump “to the last syllogism” to deem him irrational? That sounds like an excessive, or at least implausible and unrealistic standard, and a form of extreme skepticism (i.e. “I can’t -really- know they’re irrational”).

  2. Being really loud is not an initiation of force. Speaking louder than someone is rude, to be sure, but you are still free to speak. I’m not literally taping your mouth closed. There is no “right to be heard”. It is not an initiation of force to utterly disregard a person and be really really mean. Freedom of speech is a political right, it has nothing to do with allowing an opportunity to be heard, or to care at all about being able to hear their counterpoint. There is no ethical or epistemic obligation to “argue it out” if one party really is irrational.

  3. I suggested multiple times that education is an important part of political action. The irrational people I spoke of, the idea is to disregard them, not to force beliefs which is impossible to do anyway.

  4. The industrial revolution is not a revolution of the sort relevant to political action. It was not a political act. The Luddites were a revolution actually. The American revolution also counts, arguably it only really worked because of the French. On top of that, they were forceful in a number of ways like the Boston Tea party, so I don’t think it really helps your point.

36

The industrial revolution wasn’t a revolution, yet the violation of property rights by Luddites was? If the industrial revolution was not relevant to political action, how could fighting against it be? Prior to the industrial revolution

wealth was not earned on an open market, either; wealth was acquired by conquest, by force, by political power, or by the favor of those who held political power. —FTNI, pg. 13

It is one of the rare revolutions won, for the most part, peaceably. The benefits of adopting the new approach was persuasive within its own right.

1 Like
37

The industrial revolution was not a political revolution of political ideology. Luddites were a political movement, their actions constitute political action. They aimed for some amount of revolution to alter society.

38

Industrialization of the means of production did not alter (revolutionize) society?

39

This is an expression allegedly spoken by a famous Jesuit priest: “Give me the boy until the age of seven, and I’ll give you the man.”

The Comprachico public school system is the primary reason the Revolution would fail, regardless of one’s choice of weapon. I might have all of the necessary arguments to figuratively debate Trump into a corner and pummel him. But his significant share of the public would only believe that “the system is rigged.” Any antics that audibly drown him out would only result in his escalation. I have little doubt that Trump could produce the loudest electronic sound system the world has ever seen. But he wouldn’t need it; his adoring public would provide the all the noise he needs. Or if they are subdued, they can play the “victim card.” People have been so instructed, and that is the state of democracy in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Now I realize the subject of this discussion could change from agreeing or disagreeing on a means of altering the course of history, to one of discrediting each others’ examples. Nonetheless, if we are to succeed, the numbers must support the cause. At present, I would say that relatively few people have any awareness of an Objectivist movement; they’ve never heard of Objectivism. We may hold a shared opinion that Trump, the Pope, and Vladimir Putin are irrational. Yet, it is merely a subjective opinion until proven otherwise, and their respective fans support their claims to power; they outnumber our more independently-minded individuals, and in any political context, popularity matters very much. Whether you establish a liberal democracy, constitutional republic, kleptocracy, or a totalitarian dictatorship, if you can so influence the minds of the young, they will act on the instructions they’ve been taught. That is the underlying premise of my theory. Go ahead and shout down whomever you wish. I don’t think that really impresses the sort of rational egoists needed for a more rational society. In fact, I would approve of some genuinely intelligent and proper humiliation of the perpetrators irrationality. It would help if we had a more public exposure accompanied by a charismatic spokesperson. Such is not the case at present. The liberation of the mind would be my primary choice of countermeasures, the one that could succeed and sustain freedom, and the earlier in life, the better. If it seems to be taking too long, so be it. I don’t think anyone would benefit from a prolonged “dissing contest.”

 

40

6 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

Industrialization of the means of production did not alter (revolutionize) society?

The term revolution is use to mean major changes in society (industrial revolution, scientific revolution, internet revolution).

Related, but different, is the concept of force being used to bring about such radical changes. The “French Revolution” or “The American Revolution” refer to revolts that were large, successful, and brought political change. It’s really a different concept for which the same word is used.