Roark's Monologue (The Fountainhead)

[DukeLeto]

Here is a brief response (150-250 words) I had to write to Roark's defense of himself at his trial in The Fountainhead.

[VigilVirus]

I can see the logic in Objectivism. You may argue the good and the bad of it, but you have to agree, it is quite effective compared to the alternatives.

[DukeLeto]

You could argue that Facism is effective too, but is that a good thing?

[Egeides]

Effective at doing what, Devil?

[Inoculator9]

I disagree with your characterization slightly Duke, based on his assinine little speech, I would call him an irrational anarchist. An every man for himself sort of person, but not necessarily someone with a "god complex," or he wouldn't try and encourage others to act similarly. Though yours was the natural inference, I wouldn't say that it is quite psychologically/politically correct based on the person. I can't say what motivates his views, since honestly I don't follow these sorts of things very much... trials that is.

But... I don't deny that your description and possible reasonings aren't correct, as possible reasons for his actions.

[VigilVirus]

Effective at bringing out the full potential of a person - sort of like self actualization. Being the best you can possibly/realistically be - confidence, achievement, place in society.

There are few things as dangerous as a true and intelligent objectivist. A person like that can achieve his most selfish wants. One could also connect Objectivism to Nietzhe's ubermenschen. They don't have to obey any human morals, because obeying morals is serving the men who established them. Objectivists make their own morals and laws.

As for fascism, it has advantages and disadvantages. Good and bad are vague..just opinions. The fact remains that it's a possible form of government that has its pluses and minuses.

On the other hand, we have the most objectivist system in the world in the US - capitalism.

[Egeides]

Devil: I don't think that the USA is the best place to achieve your potential. Some have more chances than some others, thus braking the meritocracy. It's only a myth being propagated that within an environment with no laws you are free. Libertarianism not= freedom, simply because someone can block your freedom.

One's freedom is limited by the other's freedom.

[Edric O]

"All the suffering in the world comes from the egotistical desire for happiness only for the self.

All the happiness in the world comes from the altruistic desire to make others happy."

- Shantideva (Buddhist philosopher)

Don't even get me STARTED on the putrid filth of objectivism. Mere words are not enough to express the fury with which I despise Ayn Rand and her sick excuse for a philosophy. It is based on false assumptions, it reaches false conclusions, and it goes against everything that makes us human. All the great achievements of the human species, all of what we call "culture" and "civilization", have been products of society. Great minds have been able to realize their full potential only because the framework of society allowed them to. Einstein could not have created the Theory of Relativity if he didn't have the knowledge of the 5000 years of scientific discoveries that came before him.

If it weren't for other people, we wouldn't even know how to read or write, or even talk, much less achieve anything. We are social animals. The greatest error made by objectivists is the assumption that human beings are fully independent of each other. That is a childish fantasy. We depend on others, and others depend on us.

Objectivism is not about bringing out your full potential - it is about stealing as much as you can from society and giving nothing in return.

And Devil's Advocate is right when he connects objectivism with Nietzche. The idea of ubermenchen - the notion that some people are better than others, and that therefore they should dominate and enslave their inferiors - is the common denominator between Ayn Rand and Adolf Hitler. Objectivism relies on the same moral justifications as Fascism and Nazism. And it is equally twisted and inhumane.

[DukeLeto]

What we have in the US is about as far from "equal-opportunity" as you can get.  Generally, the rich children become rich; the poor children stay poor.  Usually because the rich kid's daddies pay their way through, say...Yale.  And into the Air National guard during a major war, say...Vietnam.  And then buy them political offices, say...president.

[VigilVirus]

It's however known that a stupid child is more likely to turn out to be a stupid adult. And a smart child who's parents may be poor, has a decent chance of breaking the cycle.

Perseverence.

[Egeides]

Sure Devil... that's why most have such a big influence from where they start and end up where they started ;D

Ever read Machiavel? There's fortuna and virtu. Your virtu is your capacity to use what you have in your fortuna, not to create virtu (which is out of your personal control). So you can just move the best you can from your position and what it offers. What may ask you to fulfil 98% of your potential will ask another 40%... And if people were really having having what they merit, then there would be alot less people influenced mostly by where they started. How are you suppose to get to Harvard if you have to work twice as much as the other guy whose' studies in the best schools since childhood are paid?

[VigilVirus]

Kill the other guy and take his money.

[Leto le Juste]

It would be a very simple solution. But it is risky ;D

[Edric O]

I posted this last week, but it magically vanished (along with everything else):

I would also like to point you to this site:

CRITIQUES OF LIBERTARIANISM

It is the most comprehensive anti-libertarian resource on the internet, and it thouroughly demolishes the silly blatherings and fanatical dogmatism of libertarians, objectivists, and other similar wackos.

[SurlyPIG]

Strange. :O  I thought you were libertarian, Edric.

[Edric O]

I'm in the Libertarian Left, the side of all those who stand for Liberty and Equality - such as the communists, for example. The American "libertarians" are diehard Right-wingers, and their idea of "liberty" is a brutal laissez-faire capitalist market, with selfish ultra-individualistic businessmen building their financial empires on the suffering of the poor.

Basically, those "libertarians" are Social Darwinists, and they want to return to 19th century-style capitalism. I despise the filthy bastards.

You see, my core value is ALTRUISM. Ayn Rand's core "value" is SELFISHNESS. We are unreconcilable enemies.

[VigilVirus]

Would not communism be more like communalism than altruism? (aka, you lead your life to help both yourself and the community).

[Leto le Juste]

I'm in the Libertarian Left, the side of all those who stand for Liberty and Equaelity - such as nthe communists, for example.

It is also the splirit of the Holy Bible iwhich is the beginning of democraty...

But I praefer the idea of the Bitble because it is less crual and criminal than Staline.. :P

[Edric O]

Would not communism be more like communalism than altruism? (aka, you lead your life to help both yourself and the community).

Of course. Communism does not require altruism. People can be driven by selfish motives in communism ("I work for the common good because this also means my own personal good") just as in any other system. But communism encourages altruism. And the altruism I was talking about in my previous post is my personal philosophy - not a part of any political system. It's just my view on life.

It is also the splirit of the Holy Bible iwhich is the beginning of democraty...

But I praefer the idea of the Bitble because it is less crual and criminal than Staline...

Speaking of the Bible:

"And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all [men], as every man had need."

- Acts 2:44-45

One of my favourite quotes. :)

Oh, and Stalin was NOT a communist.

[Leto le Juste]

You're right, he was .....stalinistic ;D ;D

[VigilVirus]

Stalin was an autocrat and an objectivist to some extent. Most dictators are objectivists even if they do call themselves "benevolent".

[Leto le Juste]

You're right but the communist system under USSR didn't share the outlooks of the christianity, was it? ???

[DukeLeto]

You think of (post)Stalin USSR.  That was not communism at all, and it was not what the Revolution had intended to happen.

[Edric O]

Leto le Juste, allow me to explain:

A communist system is a society run along the principle "From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need" - a free association of human beings who work together and share all their property, and who govern themselves. Communism eliminates the two means by which people have oppressed and exploited each other throughout history: Private Property and the State. There have been quite a lot of communist societies in history, ranging from the size of a village to that of a city (the Paris Commune). But there has NEVER been an entire communist country. No one in the Soviet Union or anywhere else has ever claimed to have actually achieved communism in a whole country. They just claimed to be on their way towards it. They claimed to be in the intermediate stage between capitalism and communism - a stage called socialism (hence the reason why they gave their countries names like the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics", not "Communist" Republics).

So what is socialism? It is the intermediate stage between capitalism and communism, in which all means of production are the public property of all the people. Was that the case in the Soviet Union? Definitely not. The means of production were the property of the state, and the people had no say in what the state did with them. Therefore the Soviet Union wasn't socialist, either. (In order for the Soviet Union to have been socialist, it would have needed to be a democracy. That way, the state would have controlled the means of production, and the people would have controlled the state. So, by transitivity, the people would have controlled the means of production)

So, if the Soviet Union was neither communist nor socialist, then what was it? It was the best example of a system we call stalinism (for lack of a better term). Essentially, stalinism is fascism with red paint. The state controls everything, the people have no say in how things are run, and there is a huge gap between the ruling class and the working class. As far as the workers are concerned, there is no major difference between stalinism and capitalism.

[Leto le Juste]

Thanks. :D

A communist system is a society run along the principle "From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need" - a free association of human beings who work together and share all their property, and who govern themselves.

So if I understand well, there is no state anymore.

Communism eliminates the two means by which people have oppressed and exploited each other throughout history: Private Property and the State.

So, communism eradicates the state and your system becomes anarchy. But, state is vital in your system in order to give to each, according to his need because people haven't the same ability.

There have been quite a lot of communist societies in history, ranging from the size of a village to that of a city (the Paris Commune). But there has NEVER been an entire communist country.