Hitler serves as a constant for “evil”. An absolute if you please. There is little room for debating whether or not Hitler and the Nazis were evil and even if there were, it would produce such an emotional response as to render intelligent debate futile. The point of Godwin’s Rule is that once you have made a comparison to Hitler, you have similarly effectively ended all intelligent debate and have decended into the realm of hyperbole and rhetoric.
I suppose Godwin could apply in the sense that Ayn Rand sort of represents a sort of absolute free-market capitalism. The problem is that you cannot assume that free market capitalism is absolutely good or absolutely evil or somewhere in between. You can have an entire idealogical debate about Rand and Objectivism and laisse faire capitalism and whatnot whereas its kind of hard to have a similar idealogical debate about National Socialism.
Godwin’s “Law” is a joke that’s gotten out of hand. The original point of thee joke was that lazy, immature debaters frequently invoke Hitler comparisons. It happened so often that one could even create a “law” about it, as if it were as reliable as gravity or anything else that’s extremely reliable. The fact that some people treat it as more than a joke is a sad testament to the declining ability to recognize humor in today’s world.
As for Ayn Rand, her rhetoric was very similar to that of Hitler, as was noted immediately by Whittaker Chambers and others. The similarities being (1) both saw themselves as leaders of a small, elite group of human who were responsible for all of humanity’s achievements. (2) Both believed that the vast majority of the human race were worthless scum. (3) Both believed that nearly the entire world was conpsiring against them personally. (4) Both believed that the fate of the entire world depended and rigid adherence of everyone else to their personal commands. (5) Both claimed to have absolute, unchangable standards for judging everything from politics and economics to art and music. (6) Both were willing to use violence to eliminate anyone who didn’t obey them. This, of course, is only a list of similarities in their ideas, and leaves out obvious personal similarities. (It should be unncessary, but apparently is necessary, to answer the objection that Rand didn’t actually kill millions of people while Hitler did. Rand didn’t kill millions of people because she never reached a position where she was able too. The highest position that she ever reached was cult leader, but even there she knew that she’d be hauled off to jail if she killed even one person. As it was, she used her power to the maximum to serve her personal interests and make life miserable for anyone who disobeyed her. Given that, plus her glorification of terrorism and murder in her fiction, it’s reasonable to conclude that she would have killed a lot of people if she had ever become dictator over a large empire.)
That said, there’s simply no profit, online or elsewhere, in making the comparison. Far better to simply refute Ayn Rand by pointing out the logical flaws in her writing.
Rand herself, as far as I know, hated Stalin more (and for good reason) and her HUAC testimony has her describing a certain unease with pro-Stalin propaganda in the U.S. at a time when an alliance with him against Germany was seen as necessary. She would’ve preferred more honesty about it - admitting Stalin was a devil, but the U.S. needed a temporary alliance to battle a worse devil.
You know, this is probably the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen you write here on the Dope. I mean, I’m sure you’ve written stupider things, but if so I haven’t read them.
If you ever became dictator over a large empire it’s reasonable to conclude you’d write stupider things, though.
I’ll add that it kind of reminds me of a Mark Twain story where, in Heaven, they celebrate the greatest military leader in history: Fred Smith, who spent all his life as a small-town schoolteacher, and never fought in any wars. However, if he HAD been made a general, he would have been the greatest strategist in history.
Really? Really? Can you even name someone who was injured because of Rand? No fair pointing to paper cuts from page turning, backaches for lift “Atlas Shrugged” or migraines and eye strain for reading her books.
I’m submitting that Agatha Cristie was a possible serial killer for her obsession to write missives about murders.
While it’s true that I haven’t scrumped as many women as Wilt Chamberlain (by, oh, an order of magnitude or so), I COULD have done so, if only I had been a really tall NBA basketball player with a massive inferiority complex and too much testosterone…
Look, it’s clear what your opinion is about rand and about the thread. But suppose I was a troll, then the last thing you need to do is feed me. It seems to me you’re taking it all a bit personal (directly accusing people of being irrational or trolling). I’ll admit the thread may turn out to be nasty instead of interesting, yes. It may fall flat.
Although I must say most people simply argue that there are differences and that many other people have radical ideas as well. Well, I’ve never denied that.
The thing is, you can’t explain WWII by assuming hitler was talking crap. Well, he was, but a kind of crap that managed to mesmerize millions into supporting him and his rightwing inhumane plans. (Part of his succes was caused by international devellopments that allowed him to take the credit for restoring Germany’s pride.) But either way, for his followers, there was nothing irrational about his plans.
Of course, some people believe that nazi germany was actually a communist or socialist state. If you believe that to be true, the resemblance is indeed very remote.
There are many differences between hitler and ayn rand. But what they’ve got in common is that they strive for a set of values that are extreme. It’s clear who is the Übermensch and who is the inferior species. Followers rarely question the validity. If there would have been a randian state, it would have been evil.
