Rand, Marx, and Selfishness
Posted by j_IR1776wg 9 years, 2 months ago to Philosophy
Several posters in Galt's Gulch are openly anti-Objectivist and more claim to adhere to both Christianity and Objectivism at the same time. Since Ayn Rand and Karl Marx were polar opposites, I wonder how these Gulchers would evaluate the following passages:
"The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his "natural superiors", and has left no other nexus between people than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment". It has drowned out the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom -- Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation."
Communist Manifesto
Note the "naked self-interest", "callous "cash payment"", "icy waters of egotistical calculation", and "unconscionable freedom --Free Trade", and "It has resolved personal worth into exchange value."
contrasted with
"The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash--that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value."
The Objectivist Ethics
Is it possible to be Christian anti-Objectivist or Christian pro-Objectivist without descending into a morass of contradictions from which there can be no escape? It seems to be either/or. That Marx and Rand have staked out polar opposite positions and there can be no middle ground.
"The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his "natural superiors", and has left no other nexus between people than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment". It has drowned out the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom -- Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation."
Communist Manifesto
Note the "naked self-interest", "callous "cash payment"", "icy waters of egotistical calculation", and "unconscionable freedom --Free Trade", and "It has resolved personal worth into exchange value."
contrasted with
"The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash--that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value."
The Objectivist Ethics
Is it possible to be Christian anti-Objectivist or Christian pro-Objectivist without descending into a morass of contradictions from which there can be no escape? It seems to be either/or. That Marx and Rand have staked out polar opposite positions and there can be no middle ground.
One might even be able to argue that a Christian is trading value (his/her life on Earth) in exchange for value (Jesus' sacrificial death).
However, it is not possible to be both Christian and Objectivist. Christians and Objectivists may come to the same economic conclusions and may come to the same conclusions regarding government intrusion, but they come from fundamentally different premises.
I say you can be religious and objectivist if the religion doesn't make falsifiable assertions, claims from which you can derive contradictory propositions, and doesn't demand alms or other things contrary to objectivist.