Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Just a question for all you people that still get a hard on from Ayn Rand and want to put down all the "parasites" by protesting Obama and not paying your taxes and saying that we should just upend all social programs and workers protections and charity, healthcare etc.

Please, Explain to me the difference (if any) between Ayn Rand's Objectivism and Fascism.

Do you even know what Objectivism is? And by the way your question is worded, it seems to me that you're trying to get a specific answer out of us.

Yes, I do and even though Rand was supposedly so opposed to fascism, I see very little difference in the two ideologies since both seem to promote the same ideal qualities in a human being. Just because objectivists were laughed out of class when I was earning my political science degree, doesn't mean that we didn't know what it was or that we didn't have to hear half of Boulder parroting that crap the rest of the time.

Last I checked Objectivism was "do whatever the hell you want" and Facism was "OBEY".

I'd be a little embarrassed to claim any formal education in political science and yet be unable to distinguish between the philosophy of Rand and the philosophy of, say, Mussolini.

I guess the idea that they wish to have a strong government is a similarity, but the application and ideals regarding said government are radically different. Namely with regard to what Sym said.

But it's not "do whatever you want". It's do whatever you want as long as you're in the privileged creative class, distinguished as so by your wealth and power. If you are in the lower classes which she distinctly refers to as "parasites", you should submit to the will of the creatives. It's a complete double standard.
Both philosophies idealize big business. Both negatively depict any charity or religion. Both idealize this example of man as a masculine, right-thinking, tall, handsome egoist displaying all the stereotype qualities of the masculine ubermensch, willing to assert his rightful power over everyone lower than him. Both create an undesirable class to be lorded over or killed while being written in such a way to make the reader think they are in this class when they are actually in the excluded masses, both hate any kind of socialism or altruism, and both justify the conquest and extermination of people who think differently or don't believe in the same concept of property (why Ayn Rand defended the conquest and extermination of native americans as being so righteous). Not to mention that both also form cults of personality as a mechanism for control via worship of a figurehead (in objectivism's case, Rand herself) and espouse social control over the masses through some sort of terror, in Rand's case economic by going Galt. I honestly think if Rand had lived for two decades more, she would have taken a certain Dead Kennedys song to heart and would have advocated the use of the neutron bomb on poor neighborhoods in America to make room for more of her rational egoists.

or if I may summarize-

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t179/plurstar/objectivism.jpg

which of Rand's works are you using to form that opinion?

considering even her fiction work, ie The Fountainhead, promote a much different view of the poor rather than "parasites". In this work, they are presented as the naive who believe the rhetoric of equality and "everyone is special" to their own peril, whereas the loss of government control of every facet of their existence is would be emancipating.

Rands actual political philosophy, presented in works like "Capitalism, the unknown ideal" and "the virtue of selfishness" don't, at least in my opinion, support any sort of ubermensche (they are much more focused with the nature of the state). If anything, they focus on how the common individual is oppressed by being forced to care for those who are unwilling to care for themselves, or how caring for others is an egotistical quality.

lol, agree or not, I think "fascism" is a little, ummm, playing your hand and clearly painting your bias.

How are John Galt and Howard Roark not idealized fascists? The latter seems like Hitler's idealization of himself. What about the moochers and parasites in Atlas Shrugged? And what about the volumes of Rands own speeches where, as mentioned, she painted a rosy picture of conquests and genocides and railed against any form of charity and demonized homosexuals?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
How are John Galt and Howard Roark not idealized fascists? The latter seems like Hitler's idealization of himself.

ummm, Roark is Hitler? elaborate, because the character is supposed to represent repressed geniuss who constantly is in conflict with mediocre minds.

I get that they are strong male machismo characters, but I think that is a little better explained by Rand being a poor fiction writer with archetypal 2 dimensional characters.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
What about the moochers and parasites in Atlas Shrugged?

given it was a work of fiction, I'd say rhetorical device. Are you familiar with her portrayal of the poor in the Fountainhead? Gail Wynand comes from the ghetto to make something of himself.

again, though, it is probably better to focus on her non-fiction, as opposed to her fiction, or even to the words of Wynand (I can't remember exactly what he says) when he looks back on his life and rise to power. I'm remembering this scene where he is in the back of his limo watching some poor woman... Blah, I have most of this stuff on audio book, lol, so keep pestering and I can probably back up what I am saying.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
And what about the volumes of Rands own speeches where, as mentioned, she painted a rosy picture of conquests and genocides and

painting a rosy picture of historical faults is certainly not solely in the realm of fascism. It seems to me that every political ideology tries to reduce their culpability in atrocities.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
railed against any form of charity

you should familiarize yourself with "The Virtue of Selfishness"

Originally posted by Darth Jello
and demonized homosexuals?

I hadn't heard of this, but even if true, makes her a ***** and not a fascist.

given we all love Wiki and its answers, I know how valuable this is, but:

Rand and Homosexuality:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism,_Ayn_Rand,_and_homosexuality

Originally posted by Darth Jello
But it's not "do whatever you want". It's do whatever you want as long as you're in the privileged creative class, distinguished as so by your wealth and power. If you are in the lower classes which she distinctly refers to as "parasites", you should submit to the will of the creatives. It's a complete double standard.

I'm hardly a supporter of Rand but as far as I know that isn't what she supports. As I understand it rational self interest posits that the most rational course of action (and thus the one that she assumes people would follow) is to give others more freedom.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Last I checked Objectivism was "do whatever the hell you want" and Facism was "OBEY".

What a gross misinterpretation of Objectivism. Sad.

I'd say Anarchism is more "do whatever the hell you want."

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Please, Explain to me the difference (if any) between Ayn Rand's Objectivism and Fascism.
Fascism has state interceding in basically every aspect of society and Objectivism tries to keep interceding at a minimum.

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
What a gross misinterpretation of Objectivism. Sad.

Feel free to prove me wrong

I am not sure, but I think you either do not understand objectivism or fascism or either. No doubt there are many points one can criticise about either, but them being particularly similar doesn't appear to be one of them to me.

So, to answer your question, I would say that the difference are mainly that objectivism disapproves of the main aspects of fascism (i.e. dictatorial control of markets, commerce, social institutions, etc. as well as an inherent believe in silliness of nationalism, racism, sexism or any form of bigotry.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Feel free to prove me wrong

Watch, Ayn Rand will be turning in her grave soon.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Feel free to prove me wrong

Seriously? Do you actually believe that Rand intended for Objectivism to mean that people can do "whatever the hell they want?"

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Feel free to prove me wrong

Can you answer the question I asked, please?

This began with an assertion you made. I gave you an open offer to back it up with even the most flimsy of evidence. So far you have carefully avoided doing that.

It's actually the other way around. Can you answer my question? Please? I'm interested to see what you'll say.

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
It's actually the other way around.

I began with an objective statement of fact (that I believe Objectivism is more or less "do what you want" relative to the "OBEY" coming from facism). You asserted that I had been mislead when forming it. My statement was wholy factual, yours was an assertion.

I provided you with an opportunity to back up your claim. You did not do so and continue not to do so. If you had made any attempt to back it up I would almost certainly looked foolish and you would seem less like a dick.

Funny, huh?

Originally posted by Forum Ninja
Can you answer my question? Please? I'm interested to see what you'll say.

I answered that question already. In point of fact you began this dialogue by questioning my answer to it. On the other hand you have yet to make any burden of proof toward Objectivism not being "do what you like". Seriously is it that hard? Are you that incapable of finding a single quote, summary or paper that disagrees with me? Your really doing nothing but piling up anecdotal evidence that my impression is correct.

the definition of fascism has expanded to include ubiquitous de facto governing organizations other than the state, hence why corporatism is technically a form of fascism. I compared the two because they both idealize a certain form of man while denigrating another and create a framework for which obedience is given to those individuals. The contradiction between this and the supposed freedom espoused by Objectivists is one of the reasons why few take it seriously.
I think the current situation is ridiculous and Objectivists who want to go Galt should really be put in their place. If you injure or rob someone, under the law the victim must be compensated. These rich bastards spent almost 30 years fleecing Americans and not paying their fair share and now they're protesting reparations? They're lucky because what they're getting isn't a third of what they rightfully deserve.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
the definition of fascism has expanded to include ubiquitous de facto governing organizations other than the state, hence why corporatism is technically a form of fascism. I compared the two because they both idealize a certain form of man while denigrating another and create a framework for which obedience is given to those individuals. The contradiction between this and the supposed freedom espoused by Objectivists is one of the reasons why few take it seriously.
I think the current situation is ridiculous and Objectivists who want to go Galt should really be put in their place. If you injure or rob someone, under the law the victim must be compensated. These rich bastards spent almost 30 years fleecing Americans and not paying their fair share and now they're protesting reparations? They're lucky because what they're getting isn't a third of what they rightfully deserve.

They are similar in that they idealize a type of person, but so do most other philosophies. The type of person that they do idealize is not necessarily the same at all though.

I am not sure if you have read Atlas Shrugged, but Ayn Rand is not pro-corporations at all, in fact many of the antagonists are in charge of large organisations. From what I read of her, I would assume she would be just as disgusted by the way business has been done by many people in these times.

Your silly accusations against "rich people" just seem to stem from a personal political ideology you seem to subscribe to, and reflect poorly on any objectivity you might want to claim.

If you want to ***** about rich people you might want to make a thread with that topic instead of "slyly" attacking objectivism with an unfounded reductio ad hitlerum, so to speak.

You don't see a direct between correlation between Laissez-Faire, Rand, Supply Side economics, Fascist economics, the current situation, and the ridiculous rich protests and threats that are going on right now?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
You don't see a direct between correlation between Laissez-Faire, Rand, Supply Side economics, Fascist economics, the current situation, and the ridiculous rich protests and threats that are going on right now?

The current world economy isn't Laissez-Faire and it isn't controlled by Objectivists or Facists (unless your "that" sort of person).

Originally posted by Darth Jello
You don't see a direct between correlation between Laissez-Faire, Rand, Supply Side economics, Fascist economics, the current situation, and the ridiculous rich protests and threats that are going on right now?

No.

In fact I feel many of those things have little or nothing to do with each other.

explain

As far as I can tell fascist economics and laissez faire are almost complete opposites. Rand was a strong opponent of all things fascist, though she did support laissez faire in a way. the current situation in economics as well as the recession atm, are not based on laissez faire ideal nor fascist economics, nor Rands philosophies. The rich who are bitching, not sure who you mean exactly, might have a similar feeling of entitlement that Rand thought people of her value have, but I don't think that they are Galtian figures...though, like you showed, they are very undervalued in society, more envied and despised one might say. Supply side economics I don't think have much to do with anything, the idea is different from both fascist and Randian thought...

Really, it seems like it's just a list of things you randomly put down...was it that?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
explain

explain how things don't relate?

I'm not sure if thats where the burden of proof should be...

Originally posted by Darth Jello
You don't see a direct between correlation between Laissez-Faire, Rand, Supply Side economics, Fascist economics, the current situation, and the ridiculous rich protests and threats that are going on right now?
Do you know the definition of laissez faire? I have no see you use it correctly once.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I began with an objective statement of fact (that I believe Objectivism is more or less "do what you want" relative to the "OBEY" coming from facism). You asserted that I had been mislead when forming it. My statement was wholy factual, yours was an assertion.

I provided you with an opportunity to back up your claim. You did not do so and continue not to do so. If you had made any attempt to back it up I would almost certainly looked foolish and you would seem less like a dick.

Funny, huh?



I answered that question already. In point of fact you began this dialogue by questioning my answer to it. On the other hand you have yet to make any burden of proof toward Objectivism not being "do what you like". Seriously is it that hard? Are you that incapable of finding a single quote, summary or paper that disagrees with me? Your really doing nothing but piling up anecdotal evidence that my impression is correct.

Wow. You're really enjoying over-complicating this with jargon. I'll make it clear once more.

Do you believe that Rand intended Objectivism to mean that people are free to do what they please?

I'm not trying to prove you wrong. I just wish you'd answer my question instead of avoiding it continuously. That's what you've been doing. I want to know if you truly believe that.

That's all. It's such an easy request. You'd save yourself time by either answering it or not. Stop making implications, lying (Because you did not answer it) and simply answer the question.

Your reply should contain either one of the following:

- Yes.
- No.

If it doesn't, I'm finished with this.

Originally posted by Genesis
Wow. You're really enjoying over-complicating this with jargon. I'll make it clear once more.

Do you believe that Rand intended Objectivism to mean that people are free to do what they please?

I'm not trying to prove you wrong. I just wish you'd answer my question instead of avoiding it continuously. That's what you've been doing. I want to know if you truly believe that.

That's all. It's such an easy request. You'd save yourself time by either answering it or not. Stop making implications, lying (Because you did not answer it) and simply answer the question.

Your reply should contain either one of the following:

- Yes.
- No.

If it doesn't, I'm finished with this.

are you implying, then, that Rand might take a stance against personal freedom?

Originally posted by inimalist
are you implying, then, that Rand might take a stance against personal freedom?

No. Oh my lord. There's nothing beyond my personal curiosity. I just want him to answer the question. There's no innuendo or hidden meaning. Sorry.

the answer is obvious

you said it was a gross misinterpretation

I'd differ with that, as Rand says things nearly identical to "people should be free to do what they wish", normally followed by reference to no interference from the state.

It is a limited interpretation, much like "OBEY" would be of fascism.


















not to step on Syms toes or anything....

No, it's fine. I understand where you're coming from here. I just wanted him to answer the question personally. He doesn't seem to understand all that well. He's wasting his time by delving into long splurges instead of just saying "Yes" or "No."

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro

That's just a small introduction. If you follow Rand's philosophy, it's clear that she did not intend for people to just do what the hell they wanted. There is heavy morality involved in her ideology. I believe that dismissing Objectivism like that is just flat out ignorant.

Regardless, that is not why I wanted Symmetric Chaos to answer my question. I'm merely curious.

Originally posted by Genesis
Wow. You're really enjoying over-complicating this with jargon. I'll make it clear once more.

It's actually pretty simple, you're just trying to deny context.

Originally posted by Genesis
Your reply should contain either one of the following:

- Yes.
- No.

If it doesn't, I'm finished with this.

The post you originally responded to in this thread gives my generalized thoughts on objectivism. It's really quite simple. Objectvism is at it's core about personal freedom (to my understanding). Reducing my answer to "yes" or "no" provides an obvious opening for you to twist my words. I'm not an idiot.

Originally posted by Genesis
There is heavy morality involved in her ideology. I believe that dismissing Objectivism like that is just flat out ignorant.

then you believe there is a case where Rand would be against someone's personal freedom to do as they wish?

Originally posted by inimalist
then you believe there is a case where Rand would be against someone's personal freedom to do as they wish?

Is that a joke? Where have I stated this?

Originally posted by Genesis
Is that a joke? Where have I stated this?

by claiming that summarizing objectivism as "people doing what they want" is ignorant, and proposing a heavily moral system, you appear to be saying that objectivism is against people doing as they wish.

What an annoying troll, Sorgo was.

Glad to see that Sym didn't fall for it...sort of.

Edit - inimalist, I could have sworn this was the thread you gave a book recomend...but it wasn't.

lol, obviously you have a good memory for this, but I've really never read anything about facism proper... I don't think...

also, this thread was the ROFL

Wow, how thick was the dust on this thread?

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, obviously you have a good memory for this, but I've really never read anything about facism proper... I don't think...

also, this thread was the ROFL

It's possible, as memory can be, that I jumbled up your recomendation on that Rand book as "good reading" for fascism.

indeed, I do recommend "The Virtue of Selfishness", if for no other reason, it very clearly and, imho, convincingly outlines a lot of the moral basis of Objectivism.

^Bump because that is indeed a good book and not even nearly as long as Atlas Shrugged