Objectivism vs. Fascism
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.
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.
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.
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
Objectivism is a philosophy created by Ayn Rand, which some homosexuals have been interested in for its celebration of personal freedom and individuality at the expense of government power. Although her personal views of homosexuality were unambiguously negative, Rand consistently advocated the right to political freedom and equality for homosexuals while opposing laws against discrimination affecting the private sector.
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.
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.