Political Crossfire Forums

Objectivism and Communism are two sides of the same coin, and fail for the same reason. Objectivist (read, Libertarian) philosophy rests on the requirement that people base their decisions on rational self-interest. Communist philosophy rests on the requirement that people base their decisions on rational communal interest. Both schools of thought promise a utopia where everyone lives happily ever after, but neither can deliver.

Why?

People are not (only) rational. Unless you are Spock, you do not base your decisions entirely on rational thought. Emotions play a part, and that is okay. Emotions are a part of who we are as a species, and we should not try to deny that. But a consequence of that fact is that our decisions do not purely reflect rational self or communal interest. (and, truth be told, even when we try to be rational, sometimes we are just plain stupid). An objectivist may make a short-sighted decision that he/she thinks is in their own interest, but actually hurts them in the long run. A communist may do something "for the greater good" that crushes the individual, and by extension the whole society. Mankind is more complex than any simple school of philosophy can encapsulate.

What does this mean?

Trying to adhere to a rigid philosophy does not do anyone any good. Real-world consequences must take precedence. Do not misread me: I do not believe that "The ends justify the means." On the contrary, the ends usually reflect the means. But if we take the time to examine cause-and-effect, and learn from experience, we can find the proper balance between ideologies.

Objectivism is a poor philosophical attempt to portray selfishness and greed as positive values.

Marx's works are fully developed ideas for an advanced modern society based on mutual aid.

Rational Objectivism makes sense if you define "self" not just as the physical self, but as rings of self identity.

None of our ideologies so far are fit for the long haul in an industrialized finite world.

western europeans develop most successful political philosophies in human history.


we can't shut-up about the failed bull-shit invented by Eastern Europeans decades later.

is this a sly way of saying that marxism is good and objectivism is bad?

In an Ayn Rand society what would happen to all those too lazy to look for work?

they'd rebel and slit the riches throats

i don't think even the richest person on the planet could afford a private army even at US military salaries. even if they could, in the end it'd be slightly better than a militia unless they can maintain fleets of tanks and jets.

besides, mercenaries have failed to quell rebellions throughout human history.