Ayn Rand

[Lemur]

That's wrong. Straight up, completely wrong about her philosophy.

Wait, so Ayn Rand didn't divide society into producers and parasites? She didn't invert the communist formula in a dierct and simple-minded manner? News to me. Not defending the article, but producers and parasites seems like a simple but apt summary of the Randian worldview. Now let's all skip off to Gault Gulch!

[Crazed Rabbit]

For cripes sake, she didn't say the workers were parasites. Lots of government people, and those living on the dole (maybe? I don't remember the particulars) - a major difference from workers. The linked article insists she called workers parasites.

Haven't red the book, but from what I picked up,

By osmosis? Were you standing near the book a lot?

CR

[jirisys]

By osmosis? Were you standing near the book a lot?

CR

No, he picked it up.

~Jirisys ()

[Populus Romanus]

No, he picked it up.

The book or information?

[HoreTore]

I highly object to some random and irrelevant fiction writers name being associated with people with actual intellectual ability like Karl Marx(who is usually mentioned along with people like Adam Smith).

The comparison to L Ron Hubbard is decent though.

[lars573]

I highly object to some random and irrelevant fiction writers name being associated with people with actual intellectual ability like Karl Marx(who is usually mentioned along with people like Adam Smith).

The comparison to L Ron Hubbard is decent though.

20th century philosophers (or philosopher wannabes) dress their manifestos in novel form. Hubbard, Rand, Heinlein they all did it (although Heinlein's probably the best writer of the three). It's a modern version of the Socratic dialogue. You wrap your ideas about how society, the state, and the person should deport themselves in a work of fiction to make it easier for the reader to digest. And thus greatly broaden it's appeal. Read Heinlein's Starship Troopers and tell me it's not a manifesto of Heinlein's views on how society and it's military should operate.

[HoreTore]

Make that 20th century wannabe-philosophers, and I agree.

Actual philsophers do it differently, fortunately.

[jirisys]

The abolishment of the state and starting to live in communities is text book examples of pure communism though.

I think communism requires the state.

She never heard of them robots. Or free time.

~Jirisys ()

[Adrian II]

For cripes sake, she didn't say the workers were parasites. Lots of government people, and those living on the dole (maybe? I don't remember the particulars)

Read Roark's pathetic courtroom speech, says it all. It's condensed Nietzsche, but with no Nietzsche in it. Like apple juice made from one drop of apple essence, a liter of water and seven spoonfuls of sugar.

AII

[Crazed Rabbit]

Read Roark's pathetic courtroom speech, says it all. It's condensed Nietzsche, but with no Nietzsche in it. Like apple juice made from one drop of apple essence, a liter of water and seven spoonfuls of sugar.

AII

I admit that when I skipped ahead and saw that the whole speech was 50 pages, I skipped it.

The main thing I remember is her theory of objectivism, as summarized in my head (Don't give anything to anybody without compensation, and don't use force to take anything for yourself or someone else.) I think there's something about working only for yourself in there too, but it's been several years and the details didn't seem worth remembering.

Please, since you claim to have some decent info on her philosophy and might have red the book, you could correct me if you wish.

The abolishment of the state and starting to live in communities is text book examples of pure communism though.

The looters mentioned are the people who work for the state, who loot by passing laws seizing companies for the state to devour in order to survive a few more years, or by high taxation, handouts to favored companies that couldn't compete otherwise.

The Galt's Gulch is Rand's vision of an objectivist utopia.

CR

[Ironside]

The looters mentioned are the people who work for the state, who loot by passing laws seizing companies for the state to devour in order to survive a few more years, or by high taxation, handouts to favored companies that couldn't compete otherwise.

Would you say that the theme in the book for the workers after the collapse are to remove the looters and create a new society or do they need the ones from Galt's Gulch to do it? Or are those in Galt's Gulch caring about what happens to the workers?

I would say that the post collapse society tells most of what value she did put on the workers.

The Galt's Gulch is Rand's vision of an objectivist utopia.

CR

I was more thinking on what it resembles.

For example, capitalism doesn't really function even in a semi-post scarcity society, since everyone got enough to live well and easy access to work with gives an income. Captilalism starts to become superficial.

Does social class exist there or did it die out through the selection? Who does the dirty jobs (sewage maintenance, garbage man)?
Does "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" apply there or not?
I picked up that crime doesn't exist there. Is it because everyone is working on self-enlightened interest or something else? White collar crime exist due to short sighted self interest, so I doubt you can get away from that even in a wealthy society.

[Ironside]

By osmosis? Were you standing near the book a lot?

CR

Yes, through Internet osmosis. You might even heard about this Internet thingy. Things are talked about there and you can red about that.

Please, since you claim to have some decent info on her philosophy and might have red the book, you could correct me if you wish.

The abolishment of the state and starting to live in communities is text book examples of pure communism though. How simular the rest about Galt's Gush is depends a lot of the details, which are a bit lacking on the net.