3 Reasons Millennials Should Ditch Karl Marx for Ayn Rand

What attracts people to Objectivitism? Why is Ayn Rand still relevant today?

A friend of a friend just published this article:

fee.org/articles/3-reasons-millennials-should-ditch-karl-marx-for-ayn-rand

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.fo/0RDrG
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Burger slave mentality.

Everything she said the milkman said better and more coherently.

Even gulag is too good for this whore.

Wealth worship - capitalism has succeeded in training the serfs to strive for wealth, to think like we're rich even though we are owned. We keep ourselves policed this way.

Reminder that Ayn Rand lived off of government welfare.

The same as what attracts people to marxism, the need for a master-signifier.

The article itself is obviously terrible, claiming Marx appealed to emotional indignation when that's true of literally all politico-economic philosophy, Rand's included. It has a clickbait list format, reads like a high school writing assignment, and the arguments are hinged on having never read Marx, you can tell because she only quotes the Manifesto.

Thus demonstrating that unconditionally giving people welfare is a bad idea, proving herself right. Rand just functioned on a higher level.

Glad to see they won't get mad if I use their private property without permission to bring the "element of civilization". Whatever that is.

kek

The comment section is gold.

Is it Randroids making fools of themselves?

Yes. Someone even said that the bible is the reason why American capitalism works.

now THIS is pseud-posting

Ayn Rand is the spooked poor man's Stirner.

She also didn't think smoking was bad for you. She would later go on to get lung cancer

The Koch brothers

She also didn't believe the Soviets were in space, because she wrote in her book that non-capitalists couldn't do progress or innovation.

lmfao

It's literally the same argument that was used by Locke to justify British imperialism, untouched.

because the shitty "fuck you got mine" sentiment is ingrained in us and a philosophy that tells you "that's OK, you're absolutely right, you do deserve all that" soothes away all those questions like "are we the baddies?"

Yeah I hate it when my parents try to guilt me into buying a house with all the money I just have laying around.

I think her brand of thought still has some pull because she was arguably the first to use Marxist messaging in her defense of capitalism, something later neoliberal ideologues would use a couple of decades down the line. She was educated in the Soviet Union after all.

She still very much uses the imagery of a productive class being oppressed and exploited by a political class, but rather than this being the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, it's the heroic individualist entrepreneur vs the state, the church, socialists, the degenerate masses and other various "collectivist" institutions that supposedly run society and hold back the "strong". Keeping in mind that the audience is intended to identify with the entrepreneurs.

Just take the lyrics to the old socialist and unionist anthem Solidarity Forever. Taken at a different angle, they could easily be Rand's words.

"Is there aught we hold in common with the greedy parasite,
Who would lash us into serfdom and would crush us with his might?
Is there anything left to us but to organize and fight?

It is we who plowed the prairies; built the cities where they trade;
Dug the mines and built the workshops, endless miles of railroad laid;
Now we stand outcast and starving midst the wonders we have made;

All the world that's owned by idle drones is ours and ours alone.
We have laid the wide foundations; built it skyward stone by stone.
It is ours, not to slave in, but to master and to own.
While the union makes us strong

They have taken untold millions that they never toiled to earn,
But without our brain and muscle not a single wheel can turn.
We can break their haughty power, gain our freedom when we learn

In our hands is placed a power greater than their hoarded gold,
Greater than the might of armies, multiplied a thousand-fold.
We can bring to birth a new world from the ashes of the old"

Objectivists' view of individualism completely lacks the question on how the individual is maintained and developed. The only see individuals as entities on some metaphysical plane.

If the wanted to know the basics of communism then they should read "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" and "German Ideology".

"It would be desirable if this(Peace) could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it" Engels

People in the position of power aren't simply going to give it to you. They will fight you for it. This isn't something unique about communism. This is how politics works.

No. Read the German Ideology. The communist manifesto does not go into detail on dialectic materialism.

Your job, income, and individual existence is a product of society and thus you owe your skills to society. This isn't collectivist. This is what capitalism brought when it came to be the dominant system. I'm astonished how capitalist supporters don't even understand that capitalism brought about a social labor force and destroyed individual labor.

I'm laughing at pic related and I ain't even high. Maybe I'm of simple mind too…

The natives were primitive, even sub-reactionary. They didn't live in communal groups where they shared, that's a 1960s myth. They lived in groups where the toughest man simply beat up or stabbed anyone who opposed him. It's a mini-fascist society.
I don't see this obsession with the past in my social circles as a good thing, a proper member of the people should seek progress not wallowing in the ashheap of history.

What's next, romanticizing feudalism?

Not too huge a leap, hereditary monarchy has already been given the ☭TANKIE☭ seal of approval.

to be fair under feudalism you had a stable job and the guy above you had a systematically coherent excuse to be here. (his dad was there, and his dad was there, and his dad was there, and god put his dad there.) rather than the inconsistent nonsense lie of "well i worked hard and pulled myself up by my bootstraps and my dad talked to a guy, and his dad talked to a guy, and his dad talked to a guy, and his dad was venerated as a god once when he arrived on a polynesian island to genocide the natives and build a fruit factory.

Give up rootless collectivist materialism for rootless individualist materialism.

Did you know that all of the key figures in Objectivism for the first 30 years were literally cousins of Ayn Rand?

Ethnocentric tribes gonna ethnocentric

...

...

I can't believe people are posting this shitty image I made to this day.

So they can try to pass off their opinions as facts.

No, welfare is a lot harder to get these days, you can't really live off of it as easily as she did.

lol i replied to so many autists on that article. i wanted to die

This quote is fantastic. It makes it obvious how Objectivism and Right-Libertarianism is basically taking Socialist critiques and using it to support the petit-bourgeoisie.

I thought about posting and kinda did, but felt too dead to post more

Well not the bible, but because of a certain interpretation of the bible.
Read Weber

Weber made me a Catholic again no joke.

these need to be in the booru.

Well, slaying the lower class who have grievance with the ruling class like mad dogs IS part of Protestantism. :^)

I'm aware that Native American society wasn't all that its cracked up to be, but I haven't seen any credible evidence that the notion of the savage savage is any less of a myth then the noble savage mythology. It also seemed that many native societies were either beginning the transition into slave-society when the Europeans arrived or had fully developed hierarchal structures resembling feudalism (e.g. Incas, Aztecs)

Most of the interactions with indigenous peoples of the americas happened a good while after yuropeens arrived and spread diseases among them. They unleashed a plague that ran out across the continents well ahead of them. By the time the settlers started interacting with the natives, most of the natives had effectively been living in a real-life post-apocalypse, sometimes for over a hundred years before seeing Europeans. What kind of societies existed prior to the wave of disease that blasted through the americas is not that well known. Some of the south american societies were a lot more highly developed than primitive tribes, and they had significantly less time to develop than in north america. European explorers didn't get that far into north america early in the colonial era, unlike the Spaniards in south america so who knows what society was like previoiusly. Most of what the later explorers found was chaotic and violent, which is what you expect in a fallen civilization.

There were at least 1000 tribes. Kind of hard to generalize. They were not all the same. Anyway Aynus argument about defending colonialism and imperialism was based on false info. She claimed they had no concept of property of land which just isn't true at all. They had their own teritories with natural borders. Some even had cities not just villages.

I don't know why it bothers me so much that people refer to her as a "philosopher" but it does. She was a fiction writer, and a shitty one at that, nothing more.

...

KHRUSHCHEV IS ANCAP

MARXIST LIBERTARIANISM

When you think about it Libertarianism is just Marxism for the individual.

The thesis element is the individual. The antithetical element is the society repressing the individual. The synthesis is the society that respects the "rights" of the individual as Libertarians define them.

The Libertarian movement is the revolutionary vanguard. The trouble is there is no crisis since over 95% of people aren't libertarians.