Objectivism verses Material Dialecticalism, a clean debate

[Uncensored2008]

This sounds a lot like a faculty lounge conversation about what to have for lunch. Is there some specific proposition in all of this or is it just a specious linguistic exercise? From what we now know, Marx's economic theories are the equivalent of trying to prove that the Earth is flat.

This is a purely academic discussion, with no purpose other than to explore the ideas, and misconceptions of the ideas, of there to polar opposite view points.

 

[midcan5]

Interesting thread, I have to read more. Oldfart took care of Objectivism in Post 3, and Konradv in Post 10 beat me to the punch. Obj and DM are no different than libertarianism or Tea Party republicanism today. Does everyone forget so quickly the collapse of 2007/08 and its reasons? The idea that power and privilege can be controlled and managed by ideas alone, no matter how noble sounding, leads quickly to totalitarian anarchy as Stalin demonstrated.

The American Conservative -- Marxism of the Right

"...[L]ibertarianism is basically the Marxism of the Right. If Marxism is the delusion that one can run society purely on altruism and collectivism, then libertarianism is the mirror-image delusion that one can run it purely on selfishness and individualism. Society in fact requires both individualism and collectivism, both selfishness and altruism, to function. Like Marxism, libertarianism offers the fraudulent intellectual security of a complete a priori account of the political good without the effort of empirical investigation. Like Marxism, it aspires, overtly or covertly, to reduce social life to economics. And like Marxism, it has its historical myths and a genius for making its followers feel like an elect unbound by the moral rules of their society."


http://www.usmessageboard.com/gener...ult-of-selfishness-on-the-american-right.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/50564-libertarianism-in-a-nutshell-ii.html


"There isn't much point arguing about the word "libertarian." It would make about as much sense to argue with an unreconstructed Stalinist about the word "democracy" -- recall that they called what they'd constructed "peoples' democracies." The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called "libertarian" here happens to amount to advocacy of perhaps the worst kind of imaginable tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. If they want to call that "libertarian," fine; after all, Stalin called his system "democratic." But why bother arguing about it?" Noam Chomsky

 

[jwoodie]

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

 

[konradv]

The converse is also true in the way it relates to Libertarianism/Objectivism. Just as people acting in their own self-interest will foil Marxism, people acting against the interest of others foils Libertarianism/Objectivism. To have a civilized society some controls are necessary to keep the strong from enslaving the weak.

Whoa! konradv, are you saying that Objectivism IS Libertarianism? If so, that is something I never realized.

It's not exactly the same, but is an offshoot of the same philosophy.

There' some good reading here:

Critiques Of Libertarianism

 

[konradv]

The converse is also true in the way it relates to Libertarianism/Objectivism. Just as people acting in their own self-interest will foil Marxism, people acting against the interest of others foils Libertarianism/Objectivism.

In what way?

To have a civilized society some controls are necessary to keep the strong from enslaving the weak.

The 13th amendment seems sufficient for that.

The amendment alone does nothing. Laws are needed to implement it. That's where you get into the arguments. One man's "enslavement" is another's "sharp business practice". You can't take my use of the word to mean just the antebellum institution of slavery, but something closer to "economic domination".

 

[oldfart]

"...[L]ibertarianism is basically the Marxism of the Right. If Marxism is the delusion that one can run society purely on altruism and collectivism, then libertarianism is the mirror-image delusion that one can run it purely on selfishness and individualism. Society in fact requires both individualism and collectivism, both selfishness and altruism, to function. Like Marxism, libertarianism offers the fraudulent intellectual security of a complete a priori account of the political good without the effort of empirical investigation. Like Marxism, it aspires, overtly or covertly, to reduce social life to economics. And like Marxism, it has its historical myths and a genius for making its followers feel like an elect unbound by the moral rules of their society."

I basically agree that both ideologies are dead ends and bear the similar badges of totalitarianism. Rather than set the two against each other, the more interesting question is what they are opposed to: the traditional liberal (as in 18th century parlance) tradition of Hume, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, and the Mills, father & son. This is the intellectual ancestor of both non-Marxist socialism (Social Democratic Movement) and the "conservative" political, social, and economic philosophies of the period 1880--1970.

Recall that the welfare state was a construct of Bismark! The "free market" drivel common today is debunked by Milton Friedman's 1962 book "Capitalism and Freedom" which I sense nobody on the modern Right has bothered to actually read. Friedman was a competent economist and bares little resemblance to the charicature he has been made into. The same can be said of most of the Right's economic icons: Hayek, Bohm-Bawerk, and so forth; but Von Mises and old Joe Schumpeter were definitely a little out there.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Interesting thread, I have to read more. Oldfart took care of Objectivism in Post 3, and Konradv in Post 10 beat me to the punch.

Midcan, with all due respect; you clearly have zero knowledge of the subject. You have no clue what Objectivism is, and you have no grasp of Dialectic Materialism.

It appears that your only objective is to post the same tired, partisan nonsense that you post in every thread.

I am asking you nicely, to respect the purpose of this thread. If you have something to add in regard to Objectivism or Material Dialecticism, please contribute. Otherwise, please respect the discussion.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The amendment alone does nothing. Laws are needed to implement it.

The amendment is law, the law of the land in fact.

That's where you get into the arguments. One man's "enslavement" is another's "sharp business practice".

Involuntary servitude leaves no wiggle room.

You can't take my use of the word to mean just the antebellum institution of slavery, but something closer to "economic domination".

"economic domination," in whatever Marxian meaning you have, is not involuntary servitude.

And you failed to address how "people acting against the interest of others foils Libertarianism/Objectivism," as you had claimed? I assume you meant that people acting in the interest of others foils Objectivism, but even here there is no sense that I can make of the claim?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I basically agree that both ideologies are dead ends and bear the similar badges of totalitarianism.

You may agree, but I don't think you can offer a cogent argument that supports your claim.

Rather than set the two against each other, the more interesting question is what they are opposed to: the traditional liberal (as in 18th century parlance) tradition of Hume, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, and the Mills, father & son. This is the intellectual ancestor of both non-Marxist socialism (Social Democratic Movement) and the "conservative" political, social, and economic philosophies of the period 1880--1970.

It's funny, Konradv tied the Objectivists and the Libertarians together, which is wrong of course. But the irony remains, you argue that they are opposed to traditional liberals, when in fact the Libertarians ARE the original liberals. Obviously the democrats are leftists with no tie at all to liberalism of any type.

Further, I would LOVE to see you attempt to support your claim that Rand was opposed to Smith. Wealth of Nations is an enormous tome, and there are some obscure passage that have popped up on the hate sites from time to time to try and paint Smith as an advocate of collectivism, but a quick recital of actual text makes short work of such claims.

Recall that the welfare state was a construct of Bismark! The "free market" drivel common today is debunked by Milton Friedman's 1962 book "Capitalism and Freedom" which I sense nobody on the modern Right has bothered to actually read. Friedman was a competent economist and bares little resemblance to the charicature he has been made into.

Friedman was of the Chicago school of economics. He has differing views than does the Austrian school of Von Mises. This does not make Friedman an advocate of the Keynesian lunacy, nor sympathetic to collectivist model the modern left adores.

The same can be said of most of the Right's economic icons: Hayek, Bohm-Bawerk, and so forth; but Von Mises and old Joe Schumpeter were definitely a little out there.

I suspect you have never read Hayek.

But you still miss the boat. Murray Rothbard was an advocate of Von Mises, and the Libertarian movement he founded follows this economic model - myself included. However, this has nothing to do with Rand, or Objectivism.

Rothbard had no love for Rand, none at all.

The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult by Murray N. Rothbard

It is the depth of ignorance to lock Libertarianism and Objectivism together.

 

[HereAmIAmMe]

"...[L]ibertarianism is basically the Marxism of the Right. If Marxism is the delusion that one can run society purely on altruism and collectivism, then libertarianism is the mirror-image delusion that one can run it purely on selfishness and individualism. Society in fact requires both individualism and collectivism, both selfishness and altruism, to function. Like Marxism, libertarianism offers the fraudulent intellectual security of a complete a priori account of the political good without the effort of empirical investigation. Like Marxism, it aspires, overtly or covertly, to reduce social life to economics. And like Marxism, it has its historical myths and a genius for making its followers feel like an elect unbound by the moral rules of their society."

I basically agree that both ideologies are dead ends and bear the similar badges of totalitarianism. Rather than set the two against each other, the more interesting question is what they are opposed to: the traditional liberal (as in 18th century parlance) tradition of Hume, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, and the Mills, father & son. This is the intellectual ancestor of both non-Marxist socialism (Social Democratic Movement) and the "conservative" political, social, and economic philosophies of the period 1880--1970.

Recall that the welfare state was a construct of Bismark! The "free market" drivel common today is debunked by Milton Friedman's 1962 book "Capitalism and Freedom" which I sense nobody on the modern Right has bothered to actually read. Friedman was a competent economist and bares little resemblance to the charicature he has been made into. The same can be said of most of the Right's economic icons: Hayek, Bohm-Bawerk, and so forth; but Von Mises and old Joe Schumpeter were definitely a little out there.

Just doing quick research it appears that Friedman supported a free market. That makes me wonder what you saw in his book that debunked it. I have not read it (or any other econ book for that matter) but most of the quotes from him that I have seen have been entirely in support of a free market.

 

[konradv]

Just doing quick research it appears that Friedman supported a free market. That makes me wonder what you saw in his book that debunked it. I have not read it (or any other econ book for that matter) but most of the quotes from him that I have seen have been entirely in support of a free market.

Friedman was an exponent of a free market, but also believed in the Negative Income Tax, which would provide a basic minimum income for all.

Negative income tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[oldfart]

Interesting thread, I have to read more. Oldfart took care of Objectivism in Post 3, and Konradv in Post 10 beat me to the punch.

Midcan, with all due respect; you clearly have zero knowledge of the subject. You have no clue what Objectivism is, and you have no grasp of Dialectic Materialism.

It appears that your only objective is to post the same tired, partisan nonsense that you post in every thread.

I am asking you nicely, to respect the purpose of this thread. If you have something to add in regard to Objectivism or Material Dialecticism, please contribute. Otherwise, please respect the discussion.

I'm violating the rule that violations in CDZ should be reported rather than responded to because I believe that direct response is more appropriate. Imputing motives to another poster ("only objectivbe is to post the same tired, partisan nonsense...") and describing another poster as "clearly hav[ing] zero knowledge of the subject" is outside the spirit of the CDZ.

I politely ask you to observe your own injunction to "respect the purpose of the thread".

Alternatively we can have the thread moved to a more robust forum where I and others will be happy to reply to you in kind for such behavior.

BTW, you exhibit far less knowledge and learning than you represent in your poseur role. This is obvious and does you no credit. You probably need some academic credentials or publications to justify trying to throw people off a thread, even if you started it. The thread "belongs" to all posters who participate.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Friedman was an exponent of a free market, but also believed in the Negative Income Tax, which would provide a basic minimum income for all.

Negative income tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is somewhat misleading. Friedman opposed the income tax and all direct taxes. Friedman wrote that IF we must have a graduated income tax, that the NIT is a better model of social welfare than direct transfer payments. Friedman's proposal is the basis of the "Earned Income Tax Credit" that Reagan established.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm violating the rule that violations in CDZ should be reported rather than responded to because I believe that direct response is more appropriate. Imputing motives to another poster ("only objectivbe is to post the same tired, partisan nonsense...") and describing another poster as "clearly hav[ing] zero knowledge of the subject" is outside the spirit of the CDZ.

I politely ask you to observe your own injunction to "respect the purpose of the thread".

Alternatively we can have the thread moved to a more robust forum where I and others will be happy to reply to you in kind for such behavior.

BTW, you exhibit far less knowledge and learning than you represent in your poseur role. This is obvious and does you no credit. You probably need some academic credentials or publications to justify trying to throw people off a thread, even if you started it. The thread "belongs" to all posters who participate.

While your ad hom attack is acknowledged, the purpose of this thread is to contrast the merits of dialectic materialism vs. Objectivism.

While you of the left are quick to attack Rand through meme and mantra, I have yet to see one of you effectively support, or even explain the dialectic.

If you truly wish to demonstrate that you have greater knowledge than I, then offer cogent arguments.

 

[oldfart]

I basically agree that both ideologies are dead ends and bear the similar badges of totalitarianism.

You may agree, but I don't think you can offer a cogent argument that supports your claim.

My "cogent argument" would be a fixation on any metaphysical principle or "ultimate good" tends to allow more leeway for doing evil and wrong to others in pursuit of that absolute. I think this is a topic for another thread, if you think you want to attack the proposition that extremists of all ilk are more likely to slip into totalitarian modes of thought than others.

It's funny, Konradv tied the Objectivists and the Libertarians together, which is wrong of course.

But I did not do so.

Further, I would LOVE to see you attempt to support your claim that Rand was opposed to Smith. Wealth of Nations is an enormous tome, and there are some obscure passage that have popped up on the hate sites from time to time to try and paint Smith as an advocate of collectivism, but a quick recital of actual text makes short work of such claims.

Regardless of length, some of us have read "Wealth of Nations" in its entirety. It's worth the effort. Your point about "obscure passages" is well taken, but determining what are overarching themes and what are obscure passages would require considering the entire work. I'm not going to quote Rand to you since, as I stated at the start, it's been forty years since I read any of her work closely. But I am familiar with Smith and your comment on "hate sites from time to time to try and paint Smith as an advocate of collectivism" is a rather bizarre interjection as I am not associated nor have visited the sites you refer to and can find nothing in my posting that identifies Smith as a collectivist. Perhaps you are confusing this with Smith's often repeated comments on the need for government to fight monopoly and collusion in markets, or his less famous but more strident advocacy of paper money as superior to gold coin.

Friedman was of the Chicago school of economics. He has differing views than does the Austrian school of Von Mises. This does not make Friedman an advocate of the Keynesian lunacy, nor sympathetic to collectivist model the modern left adores.

Again you are setting up a straw man. I have had the pleasure of meeting and hearing Dr Friedman on a substantial number of occasions and have read a goodly portion of his published work, both scholarly and popular. While he was dismissive of "crude Keynesianism" he was also quite at home with the "New Keynesians" and his macropolicy was quite consistent with their models, as their models evidenced a due respect for his work on monetary theory. None of this would be regarded as "collectivism" except by a Right-wing neo-Austrian ideologue under the delusion that he was the reincarnation of Schumpeter.

I suspect you have never read Hayek.

You suspect wrong. I never mention the name of an economist or historian who I have not read, nor refer to a publication that I am not reasonably familiar with. Back in the day, every PhD candidate in economics had to display a comprehension of the "History of Economic Thought", and my institution was no exception. I will extend you the courtesy of assuming that you have read or are at least familiar with the authors you mention or quote.

It is the depth of ignorance to lock Libertarianism and Objectivism together.

You are obviously engaged in an intellectual contest in which I have no dog in the fight. I take your statement as true, but as I have no interest in lumping Libertarianism (of whatever flavor) with Objectivism, I'm not sure what the significance of that is to a discussion of Marxism and Objectivism (unless someone wants to equate Marxism with Libertarianism, which I find a profoundly quixotic position!)

 

[Uncensored2008]

My "cogent argument" would be a fixation on any metaphysical principle or "ultimate good" tends to allow more leeway for doing evil and wrong to others in pursuit of that absolute.

In general terms I agree. One of the more legitimate criticisms of Rand is her tendency toward absolutism. Still, the tendency toward more economic and civil liberty is difficult to align with a slide into totalitarianism.

I think this is a topic for another thread, if you think you want to attack the proposition that extremists of all ilk are more likely to slip into totalitarian modes of thought than others.

I would not.

I view Jefferson and Payne as extremists, at least for their time. But their extremism prompted greater liberty.

Regardless of length, some of us have read "Wealth of Nations" in its entirety. It's worth the effort. Your point about "obscure passages" is well taken, but determining what are overarching themes and what are obscure passages would require considering the entire work. I'm not going to quote Rand to you since, as I stated at the start, it's been forty years since I read any of her work closely. But I am familiar with Smith and your comment on "hate sites from time to time to try and paint Smith as an advocate of collectivism" is a rather bizarre interjection as I am not associated nor have visited the sites you refer to and can find nothing in my posting that identifies Smith as a collectivist. Perhaps you are confusing this with Smith's often repeated comments on the need for government to fight monopoly and collusion in markets, or his less famous but more strident advocacy of paper money as superior to gold coin.

At times in debates, we fill in the gaps with general positions. In the last half-decade, ThinkProgress, DailyKOS, and other hate sites have taken to quoting Smith out of context to support leftist policy;

As example { “It is but equity … that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labor as to be themselves tolerable well fed, clothed and lodged.” }

The hate site "Democratic Underground" offers this and a few other snippets to convince their readers that Smith was an advocate of socialism. Since you have read all of "Wealth of Nations," you know this is simply false and the opposite of what Smith advocated. But with 1900 pages of text, it's easy to pull a random line out to support any position.

Again you are setting up a straw man. I have had the pleasure of meeting and hearing Dr Friedman on a substantial number of occasions and have read a goodly portion of his published work, both scholarly and popular. While he was dismissive of "crude Keynesianism" he was also quite at home with the "New Keynesians" and his macropolicy was quite consistent with their models, as their models evidenced a due respect for his work on monetary theory. None of this would be regarded as "collectivism" except by a Right-wing neo-Austrian ideologue under the delusion that he was the reincarnation of Schumpeter.

"We all use the Keynesian language and apparatus; none of us any longer accepts the initial Keynesian conclusions" (Friedman 1968b, p. 15).

I never met Dr. Friedman, but have extensively read his work. He was not an advocate of Keynesian theory. Monetarist views run differently than do the views of Lord Keynes.

You suspect wrong. I never mention the name of an economist or historian who I have not read, nor refer to a publication that I am not reasonably familiar with. Back in the day, every PhD candidate in economics had to display a comprehension of the "History of Economic Thought", and my institution was no exception. I will extend you the courtesy of assuming that you have read or are at least familiar with the authors you mention or quote.

Hayek is one of the foundational pillars of the Austrian school, so I can't imagine what your point would be.

You are obviously engaged in an intellectual contest in which I have no dog in the fight. I take your statement as true, but as I have no interest in lumping Libertarianism (of whatever flavor) with Objectivism, I'm not sure what the significance of that is to a discussion of Marxism and Objectivism (unless someone wants to equate Marxism with Libertarianism, which I find a profoundly quixotic position!)

The context is very simple, in another thread the usual suspects sought to force all into opposing camps, with "Randians" on one side, and "Marxists" on the other. I challenged one poster to support the Marxian position, and she ran. Editec offered to take her place.

This is as much political as economic. The advocacy of more government and greater control of the market, versus less control.

 

[HereAmIAmMe]

I finished the first few chapters of Capitalism and Freedom by Friedman, and I have to say that even implying that he was against the free market is absurd. He acknowledges that there are some things that the market cannot take care of effectively on its own, and advocates having government oversee those few things, but makes a point of saying that it is distasteful to the true liberal (old meaning not today's version of the word) to give any power to the government that the market can handle on its own.

 

[oldfart]

At times in debates, we fill in the gaps with general positions. In the last half-decade, ThinkProgress, DailyKOS, and other hate sites have taken to quoting Smith out of context to support leftist policy;

As I do not visit these sites with any frequency, I am not in a position to comment on their postings.

"We all use the Keynesian language and apparatus; none of us any longer accepts the initial Keynesian conclusions" (Friedman 1968b, p. 15).

I never met Dr. Friedman, but have extensively read his work. He was not an advocate of Keynesian theory. Monetarist views run differently than do the views of Lord Keynes.

Then you should consider the following:

Timothy Lee writing in Forbes magazine, April 2, 2013:

I’ve been reading Two Lucky People, the memoirs of Milton Friedman and his wife, Rose.
In a chapter covering his graduate school days, Friedman describeshow his view of macroeconomics differed from those of another economist, Abba Lerner. Friedman said he and Lerner agreed on many subjects but that their views on macroeconomics diverged sharply over the years:
We were affected very differently by the Keynesian revolution—Lerner becoming an enthusiastic convert and one of the most effective expositors and interpreters of Keynes, I remaining largely unaffected and if anything somewhat hostile…
Lerner was trained at the London School of Economics, where the dominant view was that the depression was an inevitable result of the prior boom, that it was deepened by the attempts to prevent prices and wages from falling and firms from going bankrupt, that the monetary authorities had brought on the depression by inflationary policies before the crash and had prolonged it by “easy money” policies thereafter; that the only sound policy was to let the depression run its course, bring down money costs, and eliminate weak and unsound firms.
By contrast with this dismal picture, the news seeping out of Cambridge (England) about Keynes’s interpretation of the depression and of the right policy to cure it must have come like a flash of light on a dark night… It is easy to see how a young, vigorous, and generous mind would have been attracted to it…
The intellectual climate at Chicago had been wholly different. My teachers regarded the depression as largely the product of misguided policy—or at least as greatly intensified by such policies. They blamed the monetary and fiscal authorities for permitting banks to fail and the quantity of deposits to decline. Far from preaching the need to let deflation and bankruptcy run their course, they issued repeated pronunciamentos calling for governmental action to stem the deflation—as J. Rennie Davis put it, “Frank H. Knight, Henry Simons, Jacob Viner, and their Chicago colleagues argued throughout the early 1930′s for the use of large and continuous deficit budgets to combat the mass unemployment and deflation of the times.”
There was nothing in these views to repel a student; or to make Keynes attractive. On the contrary, so far as policy was concerned, Keynes had nothing to offer those of us who had sat at the feet of Simons, Mints, Knight, and Viner.
The view Friedman attributes to the London School of Economics in the 1930s sounds eerily similar to the view of much of the contemporary right. In particular, it closely tracks the views of today’s Austrian economists such as Ron Paul and the Mises Institute. Friedman believed the LSE view was wrong in the 1930s, and I suspect he’d strongly disagree with their intellectual descendants today.

The context is very simple, in another thread the usual suspects sought to force all into opposing camps, with "Randians" on one side, and "Marxists" on the other. I challenged one poster to support the Marxian position, and she ran. Editec offered to take her place.

Clearly I am not one of the "usual suspects", as at the start I explained that to me the real division was between the proponents of an absolute principle whether it be Marxists or "free market" extremism, vs. the liberalism of Bentham. Smith, the Mills, and so forth.

I think that Marxist economics is generally trash and deservedly belongs on the trash heap of history. Marxist historical analysis and sociology holds up pretty well, however, one hundred and fifty years later. You would be wise not to throw out the theory of alienation in the workplace along with the discredited labor theory of value.