raven1 wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:21:54 -0500, "skysi" <feur@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "raven1" <quoththeraven@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:h62p049efrpht316cetfe3vru0gj7hup8v@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:01:00 -0500, "skysi" <feur@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> But try "the Virtue of Selfishness". If you want to understand a
>> philosophy on a deeper level, you have to read the major works. In
>> the case of Objectivism it would be Introduction to Objectivist
>> Epistemology
The book is impossible to take seriously if you have any knowledge of
philosophy or science.
(Rand's habit of writing the equivalent of "I am totally, absolutely
RIGHT, and everyone who disagrees with me is not just wrong, but
eeeeeevil!!!" doesn't help her case.)
>> and Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal (the unknown because
>> we never really had it).
>
> Which puts her on just as shaky grounds as Marx in her idealistic
> claims. Nice "own goal" on your part.
The claim that capitalism is an "unknown ideal" comes across as
ludicrous because the word was simply a name for the system that existed
in countries like England, Germany, France, and the US. Instead of using
it in the traditional sense, Rand re-defines the term (she apparently
got this idea from Ludwig von Mises), but still uses it as if everyone
had used her re-definition all along, rather than the traditional sense.
Here's a bit of boilerplate in which I explain things like this.
One must be careful to make one's intended meaning
known when using the terms "socialism" and "capitalism"
(as well as related terms) because they have undergone
polemic re-definition over the decades that can cause a
great deal of confusion.
In the traditional sense, "capitalism" means the owner****p
and control of the means of production by a class of
"capitalists" (in the traditional sense, the owners of capital,
or means of production used by workers other than the
capitalists/owners themselves) and an economic and political
system that favors this.
In the traditional sense, "socialism" means the owner****p
and control of the means of production by the workers
themselves, whether as individuals, cooperatives, collectives,
communal groups, or through the state, and an economic
and political system that favors this. One should note that
this does not necessarily mean by the people as a whole,
nor does it necessarily mean state owner****p, nor does it
necessarily imply a non-market form of organization;
historically, anarcho-individualism (e.g., in the free-
market form advocated by Benjamin Tucker) has been
an im****tant form of socialism.
In the later re-definition, "socialism" means the owner****p
and control of the means of production by the people as a
whole, generally by means of the state, or simply the
owner****p and control of the means of production by the
state, or more broadly any form of central planning by
the state.
In the later re-definition, "capitalism" means the private
(non-government) owner****p of the means of production,
and more generally the absence of central planning by the
state.
Matters have become especially confused because these
terms have been used in ways that include both the
traditional sense and the later re-definition of the terms.
Thus, Marxist-Leninists will define "socialism" in the
traditional sense, but at the same time refer to examples
of "socialism" in the later re-definition, in order to gain
sup****t for totalitarian Bolshevik regimes that actually
destroy any examples of "socialism" in the traditional
sense; likewise, their "capitalist" opponents will do the
same, in order to sup****t the belief that There Is No
Alternative (TINA) to "capitalism" other than a tyrannic
despotism. (In this connection, one should note that
according to Marx and Engels, the "dictator****p of the
proletariat" is a transitional stage between capitalism
and socialism/communism, which will not exist until
the state has withered away to nothing.)
In the same way, advocates of "capitalism" will define the
term with the later re-definition, but actually refer to concrete
examples that instead fit the original sense, even citing as
positive examples dictator****ps such as Pinochet's in Chile.
And just as with "socialism", some opponents of
"capitalism" will do likewise in order to discredit it in the
sense of the later re-definition. At present, state-cor****ate
globalization, in which there is rule by states, cor****ations,
international financial institutions (IFIs), and the like, is
the typical form of "capitalism" actually advocated by
most avowed capitalists, rather than a truly free market.
This effectively means that there are (at the least) three
common usages of the terms "socialism" and "capitalism",
and so it behoves one to make clear in what sense one is
using these and related terms, and to what empirical examples
one refers.
One should also note the term "state-capitalism", used
by socialists (in the traditional sense) to refer to state
owner****p and control of the means of production in
varying degrees ranging from capitalist dictator****ps
such as Pinochet's through to Marxist-Leninist
dictator****ps such as the Bolshevik regimes. This
extends the traditional sense of "capitalism", as the
state (at least partially) replaces the traditional "private"
capitalist class to varying degrees.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://tinyurl.com/2gcoqt
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
|
