Some of my best friends are communists
What makes a "good" person or a "bad" person is (no surprise) personal: within the individual. That is usually hidden from external view and judged only by actions and words in the world. That judgment is also personal: it depends on the person making it.
Consider John D. Rockefeller. Most people who care to know anything about him dislike him. Objectivists admire him, but dislike his having been a church-going Baptist. Would Rockefeller have been a better person as an atheist? You only have to look at Edison to think more than twice about that question.
That is not to say that "one hand washes the other." I believe that the final balance is, indeed, a balance, of admirable qualities versus failures.
What is the essential characteristic?
A productive person will admire the productivity of others. Consider Thomas Edison, Sandra Lerner (Cisco Systems), or Martha Stewart. Edison was not a nice guy, but that is not the essential judgment. None of them were or are paragons of Objectivist virtues - some producers seem to have had no special virtues outside of their work. Consider how we wring our hands over Bill Gates. Yet, Microsoft cannot be denied. I admire
George Soros for his success as a trader. Haters take a different view.
You can find producers and haters in any population, just like short and tall people, no matter how short or tall the group. It is an assumption in social science that however defined, differences _within_ groups are greater than differences _across_ groups. Thus, I have had many friends who were political progressives and born-again Christians, while I have suffer through many libertarian or Objectivist meetings.
Consider John D. Rockefeller. Most people who care to know anything about him dislike him. Objectivists admire him, but dislike his having been a church-going Baptist. Would Rockefeller have been a better person as an atheist? You only have to look at Edison to think more than twice about that question.
That is not to say that "one hand washes the other." I believe that the final balance is, indeed, a balance, of admirable qualities versus failures.
What is the essential characteristic?
A productive person will admire the productivity of others. Consider Thomas Edison, Sandra Lerner (Cisco Systems), or Martha Stewart. Edison was not a nice guy, but that is not the essential judgment. None of them were or are paragons of Objectivist virtues - some producers seem to have had no special virtues outside of their work. Consider how we wring our hands over Bill Gates. Yet, Microsoft cannot be denied. I admire
George Soros for his success as a trader. Haters take a different view.
You can find producers and haters in any population, just like short and tall people, no matter how short or tall the group. It is an assumption in social science that however defined, differences _within_ groups are greater than differences _across_ groups. Thus, I have had many friends who were political progressives and born-again Christians, while I have suffer through many libertarian or Objectivist meetings.
Recall the story of the Mayflower, the migrants first set up a commune. They froze and starved then changed to individual ownership and responsibility, then prospered.
Acts 2:44-45
"All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need."
Acts 4:32-35
"All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. <snip> ...there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need."
Proverbs 1:10-19
----------------------------------------
10 My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not.
11 If they say, Come with us, let us lay wait for blood, let us lurk privily for the innocent without cause:
12 Let us swallow them up alive as the grave; and whole, as those that go down into the pit:
13 We shall find all precious substance, we shall fill our houses with spoil:
14 Cast in thy lot among us; let us all have one purse:
15 My son, walk not thou in the way with them; refrain thy foot from their path:
16 For their feet run to evil, and make haste to shed blood.
17 Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird.
18 And they lay wait for their own blood; they lurk privily for their own lives.
19 So are the ways of every one that is greedy of gain; which taketh away the life of the owners thereof.
----------------------------------------
Notice how these verses say that people who have one collective purse are evil, and that such people have a desire to kill and loot for their own personal gain. This definitely seems to indicate that collective ownership is not a good thing, and that those who possess wisdom will turn away from collective holdings of money and profit. And of course the only alternative to collective ownership is private ownership, which naturally means everyone should own the produce of their own labor. The book of Proverbs actually has many anti-collective messages all throughout its verses, and a few wealthy Christians have said that Proverbs is the most pro-capitalist book in the entire Bible, and that adhering to the principles it contains has helped to strengthen their business practices and make them more financially successful.
This disparity between the book of Acts versus the book of Proverbs demonstrates how the messages contained within the Bible work simultaneously to both promote and condemn Socialism.
Acts 4:32-35
----------------------------------------
32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.
33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all.
34 Neither was there any needy persons among them. For those who owned land or houses sold them, and brought the money from the sales,
35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
----------------------------------------
In analyzing these versus, Mises points out that these early Christians were essentially practicing what he called a Communism of consumption, rather than a Communism of production. That is, the means of production were not collectively owned, but rather only the profits which were produced from those means. And it is collective ownership over the means of production which is the definition of Communism and Socialism.
Now of course even a collective commune as practiced by the early Christians could not last forever, and it was never meant to, as they believed that the second coming of Christ was imminent, and they only needed to briefly provide sustenance for themselves until then. Of course as time wore on, and it became increasingly evident that Christ was not going to be returning any time soon, the way in which they organized their societies had to change so that they could be self-sustaining for an indefinite amount of time. This eventually led into the artisan guilds of the middle ages, in which an apprentice would learn a particular craft or trade from a master, and then use that skill to earn a living for himself and his family, while paying a tithing to the church, which is entirely sustainable.
Collectivism
1: a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution; also : a system marked by such control
2: emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity
So, no, just a grouping does not make it a collective. It is the intentional aggregation of control to the collective instead of by the individual. Thus, capitalism is not collective in its essence. Communism, by virtue of centralization of all resources and centralized control, is inherently collectivist.
If you like reading science fiction, you might find "The moon is a harsh mistress" by Robert Heinlein interesting.
It's fine if Christians want to openly exercise their religion, as long as they don't interfere with my life through the government. Do you want to teach children that evolution is a lie (in your private christian school)? Fine. Do you want to believe that gay people are sinful? Go on.
Just stay out of my life and we're good.
I used to be a liberal myself. I was 'born into it', as everyone around me was a liberal as well. It was only when I read Atlas Shrugged, by chance, that I started to rethink my life... And then I couldn't go back to what I was. Libertarianism makes so much logical sense.
Yes, it's nice to know that there are more of us around. I'll probably never meet another objectivist in person, but at least there are some libertarians scattered around the country!
Load more comments...