She dislikes, distrusts and probably even hates communists, collectivists and socialists…and those who go along with those philosophies. This does not encompass the majority of people however. How is this different from people who dislike, distrust or even hate conservatives, Republicans, fundamentalists, etc etc?
And I like you Hentor because you are intelligent and a droll fellow. 
-XT
I’m not even sure what this means.
What I think you are saying is that humans can transcend their more basic instincts from time to time using logic and reason. On that we agree. However, if 90% of the time(to pick a number, although I think that’s about right) humans act pretty much like wolves (jockeying for with each other for the most desireable mate, doing everything we can to provide for our offspring, etc.) and the other 10% of the time we act according to reason (although even when humans do so, I’d argue it’s usually as a means of acheiving our base desires) doesn’t that strongly imply that difference between humans and wolves is one of degree?
Or to put it another way, isn’t the enlightened guy using his reason and intellect to do wonderous things largely doing it to acquire wealth and status, which is just modern society’s way of fighting with each other to see who gets to be the alpha and the best mates, which really is just differnt from wolves by degree not kind?
In the context of the speech, though, Rand is referring to “the bottom” as those who pound rails for Reardon’s company–inept or not. I’m not sure how else one could define “working class.”
How do I figure? Well, not having the large brain of the vast majority of 'dopers, I generally use my fingers and toeses. If I have to count past 21 though…well, that can be a problem.
I think that my assertion is valid wrt Hentor’s comment about Rand being misanthropic. By HIS definition I think that many liberals (and conservatives too of course…I was just yanking Hentor’s chain there) are equally ‘misanthropic’…if we define that as thinking ill of a segment of society or humanity. Rand doesn’t like communists and anyone associated with communists…or with any construct that even remotely smacks of communism. I’d say she has some valid personal reasons for her prejudices, but that’s neither here nor there. Unless one is asserting that communists/collectivist/socialists DO make up the vast majority of humanity or human society however I’m not seeing the point here.
No, she didn’t. Again, read the books. She saw the ‘looters’ and ‘moochers’ as a very small but determined group…and the vast majority of people as misguided or deluded by the promises of that small group. In AS she was trying to change the perceptions of the vast majority and make them understand why the contrary philosophy was so evil. If she REALLY thought that everyone was a ‘looter’ and a ‘moocher’ then why bother trying to change society? Why not just have her small stalwart band strike out on their own and form their own permanently separate society?
-XT
So, if Rand believes that every member of the working class is hopelessly inept, how do you explain that the main “good guy” (John Galt) was a member of the working class? Remember, he was an engineer at a motor company before the strike. He was never an executive.
This is her portrayal in AS. There were looter/moocher ideological figureheads, and there were those who just unthinkingly went along, much to the frustration of our dearest heroes.
But I think it is safe to say from her other works that she did see looters and moochers everywhere. As do her followers. Would that they would see the fnords instead.
A large numbers of the main characters in AS (it’s even larger in Fountainhead, since nearly ever character I can think of comes from the working classes except Dominique and Guy Francon) come from the working classes. From memory: Rearden, Wyatt, Willers, McNamara, Conway, Akston (? Not sure about him…he was only a college professor though. Don’t think they go into his background), Kellogg, Daniels…and of course Galt himself.
That’s all I can think off off the top of my head. While several of them have become quite powerful business people later in life, all of them (if my memory is correct) came from humble origins.
The list of those who come from exalted origins is much smaller…again from memory: Dagny Taggart (James too, though he is one of the antagonists), Francisco d’Anconia, and Ragnar Danashult (sp?).
-XT
As she wrote and spoke fairly extensively about her philosophy, and so have many of her, um, followers, it should be no effort on your part to provide a cite for this assertion then, correct?
-XT
Yes there is.
The people who lie about Rand are all left-wing collectivists, or mimicking thoughts learned from left-wing collectivists. This is not a coincidence.
If a person is to accept Objectivist principles as true, let alone as an embraced way of life, then the leftists lose the membership of that person. Immediate and irrevocable. Membership, being the whole basis of collectivism, must be maintained in any way possible. Smear campaigns, as Cold War as they are, still remain the preferred tool of the left-wing collectivists to discredit the innocent.
I could never fathom what it must be like to smear someone with a lie in order to protect a lie.
There just has to be enough of them in positions of power and authority making policy such that it is difficult to find capable people to do their jobs without being hamstrung by self serving or short sighted but well meaning regulation.
Rand seemed to believe in a sort of tyranny of the competant. The steelworker pounding rails in Reardon’s plant is as dependent on him as a peasent farmer would be dependent on the landowner who’s farm he worked. If all you had to offer was your ability to pound rails, why should you be compensated any more than what that service is worth?
OTOH, she clearly believes in a meritocracy and opposes class distinctions (other than in the sense that she takes a position that inhereted wealth is the greatest gift and should not be squandered). If you can be more than just a steelmill worker, then go out and be more through your own hard work and inginuity.
IOW, the middle and working classes are right where they belong because that is all the value they are adding to society. Rand is very much against the concept of wealth redistribution based on some misguided notiong of altruism or fairness. And she’s about as subtle as hitting someone in the head with a piece of Taggart Transcontinental track made from Reardon Metal.
xtisme:
First, it is a question of an aggregate impression from reading her works (VoS, TNI, AS, Objectivist newsletters, and to some extent ItOE). Second, I was thinking of something like post 98. ETA: or 169 :smack:
I have already been too late on one suggestion that I dig out my Rand. All my books are packed away at the moment. But that is in the queue for Saturday.
Oh? Well, what about Christians, with all that Sermon on the Mount crapola? All that “sell what you own and give it to the poor” propaganda? Are they “left-wing collectivists”, then?
Your purity and integrity is a beacon to us all.
Neither could Kant, but don’t tell Ayn.
Agreed. My plan was to walk Duke through several examples individually to allow his argument to collapse under the weight of the exceptions and digressions he would have to make from his statement, but the cat’s out now I guess.
But I think there are still other examples I could mention should Duke persevere.
Well, thanks for saving me the trouble of having to debate with you in order to show that your ideas are ridiculous.
I don’t think so. She believes (IMHO) that really competent business people will do the right things without regulations…and that competence will be rewarded by appreciation and salary by those competent business people. That there was/is no reason to regulate this because it will happen.
I freely concede that this is probably a flawed understanding of human behavior (at least as flawed as the tenets of communism) and is completely unrealistic. But I don’t think that she THOUGHT of it as a ‘tyranny of the competant’ as you put it.
The workers at HR’s steel plant aren’t dependent on him in the same way a peasant farm was dependent on a land owner because the worker was free to go to work elsewhere (for Orren Boyle, say). A good worker would be more valuable than a poor worker, especially to someone who appreciates good work in others…which HR did. And good work is rewarded.
It wasn’t about the workers being dependent on the Rearden’s of the world…it was SOCIETY being dependent on people like Rearden to keep the wheels of progress turning, and about how it’s a two way street.
It’s funny then that she portrays so many of those who inherited their wealth in such a poor light in her books…and that many of her hero’s actually came from the working classes. It’s strange what some of you guys are getting out of these books…what I got out of them is that it takes a real working man from the working classes to REALLY have the drive, smarts and abilities in order to reach the top of their fields. A lot of the things that really got me in her books was the Eddie Murphy effect form his older movies…instead of ‘it takes a black man to show all these white folks how to <insert major plot point>’ it’s ‘it takes a poor working man to really show these business people how to make a company and run it right’.
-XT
:smack: Sorry…
-XT
Contrary to popular belief, while I’m a Rand fan (somewhat), I haven’t extensively studied her non-fiction philosophic writings. I’m genuinely curious, so if you have something I’d be interested in reading what you find.
-XT
Being the son of a mechanical engineer (who happens to be working in automotive vehicles now, in fact) myself, I’d never exactly portray your average mechanical engineer as “a member of the working class” in the same way that a rail-maker might be.
Even if Galt was undoubtedly a member of the working class, though, it points to a marked inconsistency in Rand’s arguments, as Kimstu earlier pointed out. Outside of the famous speech, Rand did indeed maintain meritocratic arguments. Then comes the speech, where all of that appears to go out the window.
For Rand it is not where you come from, indeed how could that ever stop one of her ubermensch?, but where you are. So some people, those at the bottom of the ladder, are worth nothing more than what they can produce for those at the top.
Oh but it’s Ok they should be happy with their lot and take pride in their menial daily tasks…