Individualism Is Stupid ( Or Why Libertarianism And Objectivism Is Stupid)

[Amarok]

Randriods are so dumb

[vulcanlogician]

Randriods are so dumb

Marx put it best in the Manifesto:

"To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.

Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power.

When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character."


I disagree that "Randroids" are dumb though. Their perspective is not without merit. However, one could easily argue that it's taken too far in capitalist society. There is a link between individuality and individualism. A truly just society implements collectivism for the benefit of each individual's need. Collectivism for its own sake is a thing, and the objectivists are right to criticize it. Their argument fails when it says that collectivism is opposed to the individual at a fundamental level.

[Amarok]

Randriods are so dumb

Marx put it best in the Manifesto:

"To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.

Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power.

When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character."


I disagree that "Randroids" are dumb though. Their perspective is not without merit. However, one could easily argue that it's taken too far in capitalist society. There is a link between individuality and individualism. A truly just society implements collectivism for the benefit of each individual's need. Collectivism for its own sake is a thing, and the objectivists are right to criticize it. Their argument fails when it says that collectivism is opposed to the individual at a fundamental level.

By Randroids i generally mean people who treat Rand as if she is the only thinker who has ever mattered on any subject .As for the idea of collectivism for it's own sake .They all to often don't recognize that the same criticism can be pushed onto them . As too often they push the notion of objectivism collectively to the detriment of all other concerns.

[brewer]

[Amarok]

Nearly how i felt after reading the virtue of selfishness . Fuck that book !!!

[Crossless2.0]

It takes a village to raise an individualist.

It takes a village with a poor educational system to raise an Objectivist.

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm too much of an individual to identify as being part of the groupthink of individualism

[Tiberius]

Individualism is great for social issues. The idea that no person should be treated differently to another by the government is a cornerstone of individualism.

I agree that it breaks down with economic issues though.

[shadow]

Personally I'm a proponent of libertarianism on many issues. I disagree with it when it doesn't account for market failures (such as externalities or predatory competition - there are more but I could literally talk all day about market failures). Other than that, I prefer a society where people are left to their own devices, both in terms of social freedoms and economically.

My views are probably moving more away from libertarianism more as I study society and economic systems  more because I've realized it's a highly complex issue, but ultimately I think it's a paradigm with a lot of potential in terms of efficiency.

To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.

Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power.

Why is capital necessarily a 'collective product'? Is this referring to how capital is produced or used?

[vulcanlogician]

To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.

Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power.

Why is capital necessarily a 'collective product'? Is this referring to how capital is produced or used?

Short answer: how it is produced.

Marx is criticizing the term "individual" being used as a euphemism for bourgeois dominance. He was just noting that it takes a "collective" of sorts to mass produce something. The capitalist is given "the credit" for the success of his company, but he needed a whole bunch of workers (including children, who worked in factories instead of being educated in Marx's day). On top of that, the capitalist needs roads, police to enforce laws, and all kinds of other infrastructure in order to do business. To Marx, capitalism itself is collectivism of sorts, and simply by being a wealthy business owner, one's livelihood is indirectly supported by a number of public ventures.