A criticism of Objectivism

Post Reply New Topic

They do not. Food and shelter construction keep people alive. Money does not.

The truth of Neoliberal Penality shows that laissez-faire capitalism always needs a police state and the end of individual liberty.

What you're seeing is a lot of criticism of a system that works by people who don't.


The "wealthy" pay for the food to be produced and the shelter to be constructed, because homeless people don't.


"Police State": Any political system other than total anarchy.

"End of Individual Liberty": The expression of opposing views.

Our co-interlocutor Xenon13 is suffering from socio-political color blindness. He can only see shades of red and pink.

ruveyn

The wealthy do no such thing. The wealthy often tell people not to produce food in order to increase the value of their wealth. Capacity to produce food exists independently of money. Neoliberal penality is a reality... the more free market reforms, the more restrictive a police state. One follows the other as surely as the dawn follows the night.

And the man who invented "The Green Revolution" did nothing. His back was not broken by leaning over his hoe.

Muscle labor is the lowest form of labor. Idea labor is what creates the values and those with the money provide the fuel to make the ideas happen. Try having an advanced society without property and without money.

The unqualified theory of surplus value is bogus clap-trap.

ruveyn

Karl Marx developed the concept (although Pierre-Joseph Proudhon already used the idea in a critical sense), and it became a cornerstone of his communist manifesto.

One problem with this "theory" is that it is not possible to constantly sell at a profit something that one has bought in a system where equal values are always exchanged for equal values (another communist cornerstone).

The other problem with this "theory" is that it has actually been tested in practice and demonstrated to simply not work*, thus demoting it to a mere hypothesis - a testable idea requiring correction and refinement.

*All examples of a Marxist "Worker's Paradise" have failed. Some have turned into dictatorships supported by slave labor (North Korea), some have embraced capitalism in all but name (Mainland China), while others have simply gone bankrupt and collapsed (the U.S.S.R.)

And Marx being wrong about a few things somehow makes Objectivism a viable and moral theory.

Making unsubstantiated claims about others is rude and obnoxious.

Objectivism is the only system that ever worked.

Before that Lords had to direct labor, to produce enough to feed labor. It was hard to gather enough extra labor to build a castle for defense, and make a few weapons. No one got rich, at least they ate.

Crown Monopolies made the King rich, but took the profit from labor.

The Guilds did manage to hold on to some of their wealth through production, and Skill plus Capital produced Industry, making better use of labor.

When Government runs the economy we are at a state of constant war, where taxes go to support the war machine. The American government spends half of income plus on war production.

The downside of this system is the 1% who make all the money, have to pay all of the taxes.

Objectivism is better, because the way to avoid the tax system is to pay wages, buy machines, and grow, based on an idea, that can mature into a new industry. It's only direction is the self interest of the founder.

Capitalism is Creative Destruction. Most major industries are not very old. Apple and Microsoft did not just take a chunk from IBM, DEC, they expanded the market into new areas.

This growing is what keeps it working, and it never happens with State Run Systems. Their first view is protectionist.

As for the Public Welfare, there seems to be a decline of the value of the public. They think they should be given a life, when they will do nothing useful to support it, and they will work for a chance to sue their employer.

The worst only produce babies and fill prisons. Social Welfare is supporting a lot that do nothing but add to the cost of living, through taxes and theft. They litter the sidewalks that cannot be used by those who paid for them.

Every city now has Red Zones, where by location, or time of day, are places to avoid.

The lowest class is the fastest growing,

The next class, useless workers, who think they are entitled to a job, now make up 10% of the population who will never work again.

Next up, useless but working, who have been getting declining wages for 40 years.

With employer paid health care for working 32 hours, they are being cut to 24. Someone does have to run the cash register, but anyone can do it.

Lesser Public Officials went into debt, Bond Issues, gave themselves raises, fat retirements, but did not fund it. Now house values and sales are down, they are laying off public workers, and still have a huge unfunded Pension Liability.

Local business is broke, those who can quit, those with a lease are just running out the clock.

The Objectivist has to see this as an oppertunity, to avoid all the hopeless people and do something that gives a better deal to their customers, without paying for all the failures.

I do not exist for their needs, just mine.

I would not walk over their bodies to do what I do, I would hire a sidewalk scraper to clean it up.

The Lords of old just killed the non productive, The King was known for hanging the useless, or sending them to war, or the colonies, and everytime has done something to get them off the streets, so some commerce can transpire.

We have prisons, an expensive answer.

The main economy is protected by the government. Nothing is done for the new economy.

I am trying to improve the world, but it is my sworn enemy.

So my Objective is more important to me than all of everyones needs.

I would support some way of them dying faster, and disposing of the bodies.

Quoted for posterity.

No, it's that Marx has been proven wrong by an objectivist economy that existed long before he was born, and continues to exist long after Communism has all but died out.

Face it, not only was Karl Marx wrong, but his greatest social experiment failed in the face of global economic reality.


Are they really all that unsubstantiable?

Besides, working within an objectivist economic system is a blatantly obvious betrayal of Marxist ideologies!


I saved the link.

This should be included in every social website's directives: "You have the right to not respond. If you waive this right, anything you post can and will be used against you..."

an "objectivist" economy or society has never existed. There have been approximations to unregulated capitalism, but even in these there are regulations and laws that take some of the "sharp edges" off of capitalism. Unregulated Capitalism is an ideal concept that has never been fully realized anywhere and anywhen.

ruveyn

Any idealized concept is not likely to be practical or viable, at least in the long term.

I'm using "Objectivist" to distinguish our current economic system from "Collectivist", "Communist", and "Socialist", without raising the spectre of fear and revulsion that the word "Capitalist" seems to raise. Capitalism is more of an Objectivist (as opposed to Marxist) system, and Capitalism has been working for thousands of years, while even the so-called "Collectivism" of the early Christian church seems to have faded away by the end of the first century A.D.

I don't see economics in terms of pink or red, but more in shades of gray, even though the term "Operating in the Red" has a double meaning (both valid) when referring to a Marxist economy.

Did the Man who Invented the Green Revolution do it with gold? Was it the gold what did it? Was it that he was sitting on a pile of cash?

Actually there has never been an "Objectivist" economy.


And that makes "Objectivism" a success? Maybe you missed it but the topic of this thread is not Marxism but Objectivism.


Are they really all that unsubstantiable?[/quote]
It doesn't matter. In either case its an off topic ad-hominem argument and frankly none of your business. For someone who thinks of themselves as "hard nosed and logical" you sure resort to a lot of emotion based attacks, rigid black-and-white rhetoric, and red baiting.


I'm not a Marxist, take up an argument with someone who is.


If you insist on dragging up old s**t with me I'm going to notify a moderator. I've had it with both of you.