ETA: counter to my thoughts above, Randians might argue that “the philosophers only describe the world. The point is to change it.” Odd that Ayn Rand and her bete noir (and the author of that quote) Lenin, did agree in their belief in Carlyle’s Great Man theory of history.
I would challenge that hypothesis you are basing on a single article at a single point in time. Most college graduates typically find a job doing something. I suppose the main differentiator between STEM degrees and humanities degrees is that STEM degrees tend to be more geared towards making and designing (often specific) stuff. Humanities degrees tend to be more abstract so tend to lends themselves towards more abstract people-oriented careers like marketing, sales, or consulting.
Point of fact I actually studied a number of humanities courses as electives.
The point isn’t so much which degrees are “better”. It’s that I think it’s weird that people would be so dismissive of degrees where you actually learn how stuff works or that @scudsucker would think that being an “anti-establishment, anarchist, drug user” would be something worth noting or that @Miller would think that is the superior world-view. Not to pick on either, but in the context of the discussion, a world where everyone acted out the themes @scudsucker expressed wouldn’t get much done. Sort of like the world of Atlas Shrugged that was grinding to an economic halt because no one really wanted to work or they were put in jobs they didn’t know how to do based on political favoritism.
In reality @scudsucker does have a job actually building stuff (software and user interfaces) and maybe just wants less government interference? Which really may be more Libertarian or Objectivist than he realizes.
Ironically I don’t do much of anything these days except collect free money from New York’s newly elected socialist mayor 
Again you have failed to show any way in which these things are misunderstood. These are all the things that any argument about Randianism revolves around. Every argument with a self described Randian libertarian (before they all decided they were actually just fascists) boiled to down to these points.
It basically comes down to the fundamental flaws: there is no such thing as meritocracy, and what are socialized services? If you consider cops, army, road building, etc. socialized then how are you going to keep society together and have industry for your captains of industry to rule? If not then why not? You are just saying the socialized services you like are ok, but the ones you don’t are communism.
I think Rand would argue that the socialized services that serve the common good and can’t be effectively provided by the market and is provided within a budget funded by a fair (possibly flat or value-add) tax is ok. Services that serve to redistribute wealth based on “need” or allow the government to play favorites with regards to competition, not so much.
But thats a huge obvious hole in her logic. You can’t reasonably claim that forcing people to pay taxes for socialized services is an unjustifiable imposition by self serving government bureaucrats, in the guise of well meaning concern for the common good, and then force people to pay taxes for the socialized services you think are necessary for the common good.
And again, bringing it back to the OP, where is the misunderstanding? These are the same arguments that always come up when these theories are discussed.
Complete side track. But not sure thats true, Lenin was generally a believer in Marx’s ideas of the inevitability of the transition from capitalism to Communism. The only great man theory he believed in was the greatness of Vladimir Lenin (and utter suckiness of anyone who disagreed with him)
Of course, ironically, the events of the Russian Revolution do somewhat bear out the great man theory. Without the leadership of Lenin (his dynamism, moral flexibility etc) we would not have ended up with the Soviet Union. That’s not just communist propaganda his personal attributes did play a huge part in the success of the revolution, though the personal attributes of Tsar Nicolas, who sucked at being tsar, played bigger role. Neither of those things can be explained purely by wider social forces.
Why would there be only two tiers in this society? Why would skilled laborers and craftspeople and accountants and bank managers and systems engineers and anyone else who gathers a paycheck not be able to navigate among employers to get their true value paid to them? How is it a meritocracy if that doesn’t work? You call them oligarchs, but Rand-style business leaders and innovators are not interested in political power, they are interested in making and selling better stuff to people who willingly buy it because it’s better.
Of course, you can insist that money always begets and is attracted to political power, but then you are back in the real world.
But as a Bolshevik believed it required the stewardship of an elite for that transition
Well, sure, that obviously goes without saying. In context, you were talking about whose opinion about philosophy held more weight: people who study philosophy, or people who study business and engineering. In that case, I’ll take the people who study philosophy, thanks.
Yup but that was a class of people that needed to exist: dedicated, educated (unfortunately generally bourgeoise) revolutionaries who would hasten the inevitable transition to communism, not some great man who would do so (Lenin excluded of course)
Given that Russia at the time was a backward, poorly industrialized almost feudal nation, my hypothesis is that Lenin’s revolution was less about transitioning from (the almost non-existent) capitalism to communism and was more about the belief that the Soviet Union could bypass capitalism. That the Party could substitute for a capitalist class in the development of industrialism. Orwell of course pointed out that the pigs started looking like men and vice-versa.
Which leads to another hypothesis of mine. The 20th century was dominated by three main economic/political systems. Free-market liberalism was popular in those nations where capitalism had broadly led to prosperity and attendant political power. Fascism took root in countries where it was felt that capitalism had been tried and failed; countries like Germany, Italy and Japan that felt “disappointed” by capitalism. And because capitalism spreads laterally only very slowly, having a strong tendency to reward those countries that got in on the ground floor early and make the rich richer, that left large swaths of humanity who felt like capitalism had never worked in their favor and never would. These turned to communism.
And that they will actually work as advertised.
Real life instantiations of ideologies are never the mathematically perfect 100% transcriptions of the One True Way that the ideologues envision, especially if they actually result on a functional society. Real life societies are a messy jury-rigged Frankenstein of compromises and adaptations.
Which is why you never get “real Communism”, a “true free market”, or anything like that.
Not a common motivation by historical accounts.
It was much more a fear of uprising by vengeful freed slaves, having to compete with them for jobs and to live and have their kids go to school among them.
This is basically incoherent defensive bluster. As @Miller noted in a subsequent post, his (very reasonable) point is simply that the study of philosophy is generally more informative than the study of STEM subjects when it comes to understanding the nature and history of philosophy.
You’re incoherent defensive bluster.
We’re also talking about the real world business and engineering implications of Rand’s philosophy. Which is really the whole point I think. Think of an engineer and a philosopher debating how they should distribute the work and the rewards for building a shelter. As an engineer I would simply say “fine, you think it over while I build the house (because I know how) and the I’ll decide if I let you stay in it.”
Of course it’s entirely possible to major in philosophy as an undergrad and then earn an MBA (or a JD, or even an MD). Whereas many well-regarded schools (say, Harvard and Yale) have no undergraduate business degree programs at all.
That depends on the “historical accounts”, there’s been a lot of pro-Confederate whitewashing trying to claim the war wasn’t about slavery.
That discussion doesn’t always go well
The fact is, they’re all philosophers. The engineer is a structural philosopher, the financier an economic philosopher, the politician a political philosopher, etc. The mind is a cutting edge, no matter where it’s applied. And no matter how convincing or not Ayn Rand’s philosophy, in her own era, when engineers were given free rein to fulfill their dreams, their ranks included Albert Speer and Robert Moses, and their solutions included Pruitt-Igoe.
The point is for us to get along with each other. If we aren’t allowed to each live at our best, as Rand observed, we don’t. If some of us do but others feel cheated, we also don’t. Saying “oh, you weren’t cheated, you’re just at your level” hasn’t worked yet.
That was Mao’s main reasoning when he adapted Marxism-Leninism into Communism with Chinese Characteristics. China was in an even worse state than Russia when the CCP came into power. Something like 98% of China’s population was rural subsistence farmers, meaning he had no industrial lower class to utilize, which is how Marxist orthodoxy believes the “revolution” will come about.
It’s ironic- Marx specifically said he believed Russia and the East couldn’t achieve Socialism and Communism because they were agrarian backwaters, and that the revolution would start in the industrialized and developed West. Then the exact opposite occurred.
Because he was wrong. There’s no inherent progression of capitalism to a “more advanced” Communism, the Communism of reality isn’t much like the Communism of theory, and most importantly of all (just like Objectivism) the Communist movement was essentially a secular religious faith that people adopted to justify what they wanted to do anyway.
Sure, it didn’t produce the ideal Marxist vision of a utopian Communist society where the state “withered away” and the workers got to enjoy the full fruits of their labors. But it did get Lenin and Mao into power and let them kill lots of people they didn’t like, so for them it worked fine.
In the same way Objectivism never has and never will produce a “Galt’s Gulch”, but it’s enabled the economic elite to exploit people even harder while feeling morally superior about it. Which is the real point of the exercise.