Ayn Rand's Influence on the 21st Century

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

No they don't
and
no they are not
in just that order

This is one thread. You shouldn't suppose to know what I wrestle with by my comments in one thread. Nor should you assume that from many threads on an internet forum……and it's hardly any of your business or a question I'd answer here.
Maybe it's alcohol and drug addiction. Maybe it's with my mother's abuse and overwhelming need for control. Maybe it's with herding cats.
And lastly, maybe it's with cosecants, covalents and cotangents.

a reply to: tetra50

You shouldn't suppose to know what I wrestle with by my comments in one thread. Nor should you assume that from many threads on an internet forum……and it's hardly any of your business or a question I'd answer here.

I was ASKING you!

I didn't want to "assume" -
and so - If it's none of my business, OR a question you'd 'answer here' -- if you don't want to answer the question or state your business - why are you participating and spending so much time editing and trying to fine-tune your words?

Am I mistaken? Then just say so...... that's just fine.
I have nothing against you - I'm trying to understand your point. And I am doing my level best to understand what it is you are saying.


You don't have to justify yourself. To me, or anyone.

(Neither do I, but I tend to do it anyway from time to time.)

a reply to: BuzzyWigs
Because it is necessary to be precise about one's communication if one wishes those words to be understood to be what one means, or as close as you can get. I try these days to get it as close as I can as I've paid a price in the past for not doing so.

I am participating because I've nothing better to do at the moment, it gets my mind off physical pain and where I am at the moment, and I thought the literature was very important work, and I would hate for anyone to disregard the importance of the books because popular opinion held that Ayn Rand was horrible. That, and I haven't the funds to get drunk today.

I had no idea my "points" were so difficult to understand. If so, for all my careful words and fine-tuning, I'm not much of a communicator.

a reply to: tetra50

Because it is necessary to be precise about one's communication if one wishes those words to be understood to be what one means, or as close as you can get. I try these days to get it as close as I can as I've paid a price in the past for not doing so.

Me, too!

You are, again, exactly right.

I am participating because I've nothing better to do at the moment, it gets my mind off physical pain and where I am at the moment, and I thought the literature was very important work, and I would hate for anyone to disregard the importance of the books because popular opinion held that Ayn Rand was horrible. That, and I haven't the funds to get drunk today.

I had no idea my "points" were so difficult to understand. If so, for all my careful words and fine-tuning, I'm not much of a communicator.

You are, in my opinion, ahead of a lot of people who never look back at what they have written and just leave it lying there, even it it was interpreted in a manner differently than intended.

Thank you for your efforts.

I had no idea my "points" were so difficult to understand.

Well, when you keep switching horses and changing them around, it's a little difficult. (Yes, I know I quoted that same statement above..I'm quoting it again for the sake of comment and discussion)......
I'm doing my best.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I'm a little puzzled you think I've "changed horses and kept switching them around," for it isn't my perception of done anything like that. But then, I'm assuming you mean by this that I've changed opinions, and/or switched them around.
Perhaps you could clarify what you meant for me, for the sake of clarity.

lol, sorry, that post was pretty much was directed at Rand supports

a reply to: JeanPaul
You gave us a whole lot to think about. I'm going to have to read up on it some more.

A little thought experiment can debunk the assertion that labor lives off the wealth capitalists create. Can a factory be built and run profitably without a single owner/investor/capitalist? Yes it can. If a capitalist is not necessary in order for a company to manufacture and sell goods then does this not make the capitalist a parasite? Can a factory be built and run without labor/workers? No it cant. So who is creating all the value? Labor or capitalist? The workers or the investor? Who is living for who's sake?

I don't even have to rely on thought experiment for this one.

I lived in a town wherein one businessman owned the monopoly on most things medical. Every cc of medical oxygen, every ambulance, every rental crutch and wheelchair, every convalescent bed, every job related to convalescence and rehabilitation, nurse position, nursing assistant, rehab therapist.

He maintained this monopoly by having three full time lawyers filing injunctions against any would be competition.

He paid big money to seem to be "the irreplaceable man" in town. The provider of jobs and services. The simple fact was that if he were to die, and no one was paying the lawyers, then the competition would freely move in and replace him. Ambulances could actually be owned by the county, with him gone from chairman of the board of medical district. Oxygen would come from multiple distributors. Crutches and wheelchairs could be owned by pharmacies. Nursing homes and nursing jobs would be decentralized among different owners.

So really, the indispensable capitalist who produced zilch was very much replaceable.

I'll be reading up on the links you gave. Thank you.

originally posted by: olaru12
Ayn Rand was the ultimate hypocrite....

Always pimping personal responsibility and railing against the "welfare state" and all the while receiving Social Security and Medicare. Medicare because of her illness resulting from her smoking.

www.salon.com...


reason.com...


www.cracked.com...

Medicare and social security isn't part of the welfare state. It is something you pay for over your life through weekly deductions from your pay. The welfare state is food stamps , hud housing, and freebies like those.

a reply to: JeanPaul

Can a factory be built and run profitably without a single owner/investor/capitalist? Yes it can. If a capitalist is not necessary in order for a company to manufacture and sell goods then does this not make the capitalist a parasite? Can a factory be built and run without labor/workers? No it cant. So who is creating all the value? Labor or capitalist? The workers or the investor? Who is living for who's sake?

I'm a big fan of employee-owned business. That is a beautiful description above....you and I agree totally on that.
I like Marx's philosophy (and always have). Thanks so much for introducing Max Stirner (I'd never heard of him) and relating his and Karl Marx's philosophy to hers.

originally posted by: Hefficide
What bothers me is not that Rand had her ideas, nor that people choose to like them. It's that so many in the current Republican party, holding high office, list her works as an influence. Hell, the hero of the Right is freaking named after her. That is a blatant sign of the disaster playing out before us.

AN INFLUENCE. That is all; I don't think too many people take her creed as gospel.

I personally read Atlas Shrugged myself a few years back and I found it to excellent if a bit too damn wordy. BUT... I also dog-eared dozens of pages and highlighted numerous conflicts in her ideologies.

Ayn Rand was human afterall, and despite her worship of the idealized fantasy characters in her book, was never even close to being like any of them. You also have to understand her upbringing, and how very early in her life she saw communism for the true evil it is.

My point is there is nothing wrong with being INFLUENCED by an idealistic goal, much like being influenced by Christ.

I find it funny that people would worry about other being influenced by Rand, while not thinking too much about how massively influenced the modern world is by MARX! Marx; the man who preached the systematic deconstruction of the traditional family.

Rand's ideas didn't kill 100MILLION people in the last century. And if you read her books, however unrealistic the characters may be, she freaking nailed it on the end result of over-bureaucracy and socialist corruption!!

Every generation the events of Atlas Shrugged play out closer to the book than ever before.

a reply to: 8675309jenny

Rand's ideas didn't kill 100MILLION people in the last century.

Plenty of people have died because of her ideas, whether it is bankers suiciding, or homeless freezing to death...children starving, or rampant poverty in the ghettos along with homicide.....not to mention those in areas where factories collapse, HIV is rampant, people die of malaria, etc.
her ideas are unsound in terms of humanity.

And, if I may, it was not Marx's ideas that were carried out. It was Stalin, after the death of Lennin, who usurped and corrupted the whole thing.

Within five years of Vladimir Lenin's death in 1924, Stalin completed his rise to power in the Soviet Union. According to G. Lisichkin (1989), Stalin compiled Marxism–Leninism as a separate ideology in his book "The questions of Leninism".[2] During the period of Stalin's rule in the Soviet Union, Marxism–Leninism was proclaimed the official ideology of the state.[10]

There is no definite agreement amongst historians regarding whether or not Stalin actually followed the principles established by Karl Marx and by Lenin

It was not Marx.
Here is what classical Marxism describes:

Capitalism (according to Marxist theory) can no longer sustain the living standards of the population due to its need to compensate for falling rates of profit by driving down wages, cutting social benefits and pursuing military aggression.

Happening RIGHT NOW, and is a bloody mess.

The socialist system would succeed capitalism as humanity's mode of production through workers' revolution. According to Marxism, especially arising from Crisis theory, Socialism is a historical necessity (but not an inevitability).[10]

So, there.
He nailed it. "From each according to his ability, TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEED."
Marxism

"Society does not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand."

— Karl Marx, Grundrisse, 1858[13]

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: 8675309jenny

It was not Marx.
Here is what classical Marxism describes:

Capitalism (according to Marxist theory) can no longer sustain the living standards of the population due to its need to compensate for falling rates of profit by driving down wages, cutting social benefits and pursuing military aggression.

Happening RIGHT NOW, and is a bloody mess.

The socialist system would succeed capitalism as humanity's mode of production through workers' revolution. According to Marxism, especially arising from Crisis theory, Socialism is a historical necessity (but not an inevitability).[10]

So, there.
He nailed it. "From each according to his ability, TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEED."
Marxism

"Society does not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand."

— Karl Marx, Grundrisse, 1858[13]

Jesus Christ, so you're actually a full blown communist and believe that drivel ???

The wants (not needs) of the many trump the rights of the individual????? For serious??? Those are some of the most disgusting, misguided words ever written.

It's amazing how you mention we are in a mess right now, yet you seem totally ignorant of the ever more Marxist policies that have been implemented over the years which don't seem t be helping now do they?!?!

I mean... have you even taken any history class EVER ? The problem with most western nations right now is they are becoming Oligarchies run by insanely powerful people, which is exactly the same thing that led to the failure of your beloved CCCP (USSR). Communists always want to blame it all on Stalin, but Stalin only did what ALWAYS HAPPENS, someone get's greedy and takes control!

Communism's fatal flaw is not the ideology of Engels, Marx or Lenin. Communism's massive error, is that its supporters convince themselves that some fairytale utopian society can actually exist long-term. They simply LIE to themselves thinking that there won't be the next power hungry asshole to come in, murder millions and seize control.


Look, capitalism has it's flaws too, and I absolutely contend that it must be regulated properly, but at least Capitalism doesn't try and bullshtt you into thinking it's something it's not! With Capitalism, you should expect that someone is always trying to rip you off and sell you the least product/service at the most profit margin.

CAVEAT EMPTOR good sir!

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: 8675309jenny

Rand's ideas didn't kill 100MILLION people in the last century.

Plenty of people have died because of her ideas, whether it is bankers suiciding, or homeless freezing to death...children starving, or rampant poverty in the ghettos along with homicide.....not to mention those in areas where factories collapse, HIV is rampant, people die of malaria, etc.
her ideas are unsound in terms of humanity.

So are you actually serious in claiming that Ayn Rand is responsible for ghettos and homicide ???

I personally realize that charity goes a long way and does indeed help society as a whole in many cases, but what you sir need to realize is that things like homicide and poor decision making are PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY issues. Furthermore, relieving society and individuals in particular of paying a penalty for poor decision making actually MAKES THE PROBLEM WORSE.

Lead a horse to water....

Give a man a fish: Feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish: Feed him for a lifetime.

The closest we humans will ever get to a utopian society is when we live in a society that incentivizes creativity and value-adding (aka building things).

PS - IN regards to giving away money, don't you find it a bit ironic that many of the people most likely to be Randians and also most likely to be huge philanthropists. i.e. It takes money in the first place to give it away, and it's a fact that the very top few wealthiest are also the #1 donators to charities.


It's all about balance my friend.

a reply to: 8675309jenny

Jesus Christ, so you're actually a full blown communist and believe that drivel ???

The wants (not needs) of the many trump the rights of the individual????? For serious??? Those are some of the most disgusting, misguided words ever written.

No, I'm NOT A COMMUNIST. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE, and that's what you don't know because you are too blinkered and biased and ignorant. You THINK it's the same. For eff sake, I gave you sources. Which you obviously DID NOT READ.

What Marx predicted would happen is EXACTLY WHAT IS happening today - disparate wealth, the poor ready to revolt, the rich paying no heed.......

Yes, the needs of the many DO trump the rights of the individual. FOR SERIOUS.

You think it's disgusting and misguided because you DON'T think.
Or do research.

Or educate yourself. Or allow others to point things out to you.

I am a Bernie Sanders fan. Is he communist?
No, sir, he's not. He is a Democratic Socialist, and so am I. So was Marx.

(Just like you "are A GUY" who chose the user name Jenny. Yeah, I know the song.)

Learn the facts before you spew that kind of vicious allegation on a person. Or not, go sit and watch Sean Hannity's greatest hits, or listen to a couple of Limbaugh recordings, or watch some BlazeTV. You'll feel better then.

Sanders is a self-described democratic socialist[4][5][6][7] who favors the creation of employee-owned cooperative enterprises[8][9] and has praised Scandinavian-style social democracy.[10][11][12] He runs for office as an independent but caucuses with the Democratic Party and is counted as a Democrat for purposes of committee assignments. He was the only independent member of the House during most of his service and is the longest-serving independent in U.S. congressional history.

That's from wiki again. He's not a communist.... "google it," wise guy.

a reply to: 8675309jenny

You're calling me "sir"???? Okay "jenny". My avatar doesn't reveal it?

I have an advanced degree in the very topic of social policy. So


And not only am I not a "sir" - I am NOT your friend.
That will be all between us. Thanks for participating. Your attitude is a perfect example of the problem this whole thread is about. You don't know what you're talking about.

a reply to: 8675309jenny

So are you actually serious in claiming that Ayn Rand is responsible for ghettos and homicide ???

Final thought to you -- I am claiming her ATTITUDE, which is exactly like the Corporatocracy/Oligarchy that WE HAVE NOW, is the root cause of the problem. Too many blind haters following her ideology. It's asinine.

a reply to: 8675309jenny

Do not call me "dear" or "love'" or "friend" or "evil" or a "FOOL" or "sick or twisted" or "fanatical", or a "sociopath." If you don't mind, of course.

You're an engineer??!!! Well, BULLY for you!!! So was my dad, so is my daughter, and so is my husband. And they ALL think that society is a mess.
We live in the real world.

But you go right ahead, jenny. "Everyone else but you sucks." RIght? I get it.
You don't need to say anymore.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Socio-political movements like Marxism create people like Ayn Rand. She grew up in a Russia where an individual had no compelling reason to put forth more than the bare minimum of effort. There were no gains for those who worked hard and put pride in their lives. She grew up in a socialist experiment which would fail some 60 years after she escaped. It really is no great surprise that she, and many other Russian emigrants from that era, went as far to the other side of the socialist trap as they could. Bringing it back to today, it's really no surprise to see so many Americans embracing her views, as America is quickly heading towards its own failed experiment with socialism... at least upper middle class and below.

The Marxists in this country did a very good job of minimizing what was really going on in Russia and so were able to mount a good offence against american business and production by the mid 1930s.

There was a book written in 35 by a woman Ruth Shallcross and co authored by Matthews called "Partners in Plunder-The Cost of Business Dictatorship". In it you will find the very same arguments made against "capital", business ect, ect as are being used today. Its very creepy in that regard. The game was well underway in the US by the time Rand's fountainhead was published. All of Rand's points, if you will, were certainly in answer to these efforts underway.

a reply to: Logarock

And you will find that in a sad way, we have Hitler's horrific abuses of humanity to thank for the US's turn away from fascism which is more or less another form of tyranny similar to banner that socialism operates under today.

All the world thought that fascism - private ownership run by the government in all other ways that mattered - was the wave of the future. Hitler and Mussolini were international rock stars before WWII broke out and the world started to get wind of their atrocities.

But at least the trains ran on time in Italy.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: 8675309jenny

So are you actually serious in claiming that Ayn Rand is responsible for ghettos and homicide ???

Final thought to you -- I am claiming her ATTITUDE, which is exactly like the Corporatocracy/Oligarchy that WE HAVE NOW, is the root cause of the problem. Too many blind haters following her ideology. It's asinine.

Its certainly disappointing to many of a certain persuasion that Rand remains such a strong.....problem after all these years.

If you wouldn't mind telling me.....where did you receive your formal Marxist training? Not a jab there. Just a note on how classic your opinions are.