'The poor deserve to die; the rich deserve unmediated power.' What do you think?

[Solopower]

According to George Monbiot, Objectivism is a belief system that contends that selfishness is good, altruism evil, empathy and compassion irrational and destructive. It's Ayn Rand's philosophy and becoming very popular in the US.

It's the perfect justification for capitalism. This seems to be what has informed Tory policy for most of the 20th century and is probably behind the government's desire to reduce the role of the State - they believe in the survival of the fittest. The rich survive because they deserve to. The rest of us are runts and parasites and they want rid of us.

'Apart from the police, the courts and the armed forces, there should be no role for government: no social security, no public health or education, no public infrastructure or transport, no fire service, no regulations, no income tax.'

Could it work?

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/05/new-right-ayn-rand-marx

On second thoughts, don't tell them to remove the "moat from their eye". That may prove rather difficult, unless they are on MPs expenses and also have duck ponds. Tell them, instead, to remove the "mote" from their eye.

I don't think the world has experienced socialism, Russia was a Stalinist state, Marx said that change could only happen from the bottom up and would only happen if the proletariat seized control. He also said that there would have to be a period where the state quelled and finally squashed all opposition to communism before we could finally be free. Russia gives us a glimpse of communism that never came to be, a stalled process that was incomplete. I agree with claig in so much as when the "planners" took control they became the elite.

Don't confuse Marxist philosophy and economics with Russian/Chinese communism.

I wonder how many ordinary people would vote conservative if they actually understood conservative philosophy. It supports a hierarchical society with the aristocracy seen as natural leaders, capitalism and the free market economy is fine in so much as now it can be harnessed to support these ideals.

I wonder what would eventually happen when the poor are starved and can no longer be worked and relied upon as economic units of production and demand. The elite will turn upon themselves.

Any system requires those responsible for keeping the system going to be ethical and to follow their own rules. Unfortunately, those seeking power and influence don't tend to be those who think the rules apply to them. The rules are just there to make sure no-one can follow them up the ladder.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Acton 1887.

'would it be fair to judge capitalism by the economic crisis it has created at this time and in this place?'

Capitalism didn't create the crisis. It was people who created the crisis - reckless gamblers and regulators who failed in their duty.

I see. When it comes to Capitalism, it's not the system which is at fault, but the people in the system? But when it comes to Communism, it's the system itself?

David Cameron was not responsible for 'light-touch regulation' of the bankers. Osborne is trying to institute effective regulation.

No, he's absolutely not doing this. Could you provide some evidence that Osborne is trying to institute effective regulations?

In fact, the business lobby, via the CBI, is trying to get Osborne to get the Coalition to do the exact opposite of what is required. It is lobbying for 'removal of red tape' to 'help create a more business friendly environment'.

There is absolutely no chance in hell that the Tories will regulate, rather than deregulate businesses - especially the banks. The City of London pays 50% of Tory donations.

We are more prosperious than the Sovet Socialist Republics were because we believe in freedom. the liberalism of neloliberalism and free enterprise. We don't believe that all our private efforts and businesses should be appropriated by an elite who pretend that they know what is best for us.

We need regulation to prevent anyone "ripping us off". Most businesses do not rip us off. Cowboy traders are dealt with by regulation not by putting cowboys in control of us.

You are seriously deluded. Corporate profits are at an all-time high. The share of the total tax burden has never been lower for business or higher for citizens. Many companies (and banks) are sitting on mountains of cash reserves, while the majority of the public are struggling to make ends meet.

Capitalism has failed. It is failing us every day, and it will continue to do so until we stop it.

Not at all. Capitalism is not an elitist socialist system where the planners can do what they like with no opposition or competition. In a free enterprise capitalist system, there is always competition which ensures that there is price competition and no one can charge whatever they like without regard to the fair value of the market, or they will go out of business.

This is wrong. Why do you keep spouting confused and incoherent ideology when you don't know what you're talking about?

Capitalism, left to its own devices, will tend towards monopolies and cartels. It is a tendency within the system itself to do this, as competitors try to drive each other out of business, and then make it harder to new competitors to survive and compete.

That's why we have laws against monopolies, price fixing, and cartels.

Your rosy idea of Capitalism is so naive it's almost laughable.

We are all nice to people. It was teh communist who created teh gulags, we didn't.

It was teh Capitalists who waged war throughout the 20th Century, killing millions of people, for oil and resources. It was teh Capitalists who speculated on food prices, making food unaffordable. It was teh Capitalists who prevent the creation of generic drugs which are patented, thus causing tens of thousands of unecessary deaths every year from diseases which are treatable. I could go on and on...^

We allow people to have freedom, we are nice.

No, we really don't. Ask the Greeks what sort of freedoms they have. They're not even allowed to vote in another government who won't implement austerity measures.

We, in the west, have the personal freedom to drink, fuck, do drugs, consume shit, and talk about things, so long as we don't take any action which attempts to control our own destiny or that of society. Our elections are meaningless. Protest is only legal if symbolic, and easily ignored. Government is run for and by the rich. We have virtually no say in the way our society is run.

'Why do you keep spouting confused and incoherent ideology when you don't know what you're talking about?'

Because it is sometimes necessary to cut and paste your quotes.

'Our elections are meaningless.'

The people who voted New Labour out didn't think so.

'Government is run for and by the rich. We have virtually no say in the way our society is run.'

The people had their say and voted New Labour out. Now New Labour have virtually no say in the way our society is run and the damage that they did is being undone. Who says the people never won? Only a son of a gun who believes the spin that was spun.

Because it is sometimes necessary to cut and paste your quotes.

Yes, you said that one already. I'm sure you're very proud of it, but once is really enough.

'Our elections are meaningless.'

The people who voted New Labour out didn't think so.

The choice is between either being screwed, or being screwed hard. Ultimately, the problems with the political and economic system are systemic. Replacing one neo-liberal party with another one will not fix anything.

New Labour continued the neo-liberal, privitisingm, deregulating agenda of Thatcher and the Tory years. Now the Tories are back in power, they are continuing New Labour's work.

That's why wages for the vast majority of people have stagnated for decades, while the rich have become richer, and the richest have become filthy rich.

'Government is run for and by the rich. We have virtually no say in the way our society is run.'

The people had their say and voted New Labour out. Now New Labour have virtually no say in the way our society is run and the damage that they did is being undone.

Yeah, I can see. It's great how there are so many more homeless people now, how charities are being shut due to lack of funding, the NHS is being privatised, disabled people and cancer patients are being forced to work, the rich are getting tax breaks, legal aid is being cut, denying people basic justice... and so on, and so forth. The Tories are doing wonders for the average person...

Who says the people never won? Only a son of a gun who believes the spin that was spun.

What the hell are you on? Why are you so incoherent?

'What the hell are you on? Why are you so incoherent?'

said the fool to the sage. Truly things never change throughout every age. Get back in thy cage and temper thy rage, listen to Cameron and get on the right page, no longer vote for any old cabbage.

I don't recognise Monbiots précis of Rand; in fact, I think he's done a hatchet job on her. Loosely interpreted, Rand's ideas are based around self reliance, minimal government intervention and minimal regulations. This concept extends across the board into private lives, markets, foreign policy, welfare etc.

The two major tenets Rand advocates can be distilled into property rights (what is mine is mine, it isn't yours to confiscate from me and it sure as hell doesn't belong to the state) and the concept of 'the initiation of force' (best explained as 'if you leave me alone and unhindered, I'll leave you alone).

In reality, Rands philosophy does lend itself to letting 'the devil take the hindmost', but with sufficient checks in place (welfare spending for the disabled for instance) it could be accommodated into the western political mainstream.

Incidentally, under Rands system, the banks wouldn't have been bailed out with public money and the unholy closeness between government and big business wouldn't exist.

I would love to talk Libertarianism all night but sadly, real life calls. I'll try and drop in later.

I cannot believe that this could even be discussed in a civilised society...

and no longer swallow any old garbage. The vote was won, the deal was done, the electorate turned out as one and rejoiced at the return of the sun.

I think Rand's philosophy is impractical and also horrible if it ever came to pass. It is abstract reasoning that does not square with reality.

I think she believes in an individualism that is impossible to achieve. The individual's rights are not paramount because they might interfere with the rights of another individual. That is why we have governments that govern and laws that we have to abide by. Society takes priority over the individual in some cases, and the law determines the boundaries of freedom.

Her system would in my opinion lead to a breakdown of society and law and an inevitable rule by a dictatorship of the powerful who would impose their will on the people.

She even seems not to believe in the right of inheritance - the natural wish of people to leave their possessions to their descendants. Sounds like a communist dictatorship to me.

'Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth, the man who would make his fortune no matter where he started.'

She has no room for compromise in her ivory tower. Her views are not based on real life on this earth. No man is an island, we all live in society, her view of the individual is not grounded in reality.

Life is about compromise. You can't always get your way, as Mick Jagger famously sang "you can't always get what you want". You often have to accept the majority view. At elections it is the people who have spoken and you have to accept their choice just as a losing leader also has to.

One minute you're up, the next minute you're down and that applies to everyone including the mighty who have fallen.

She saw things in black and white, just like the communists did. She couldn't distinguish between shades of grey and that is why her thought, just like her spirit, is poor and has never caught on across the world. It doesn't represent the truth or the light of reason - it is simplistic, basic and crude - and that is why the people will never accept it, whatever promotion it receives.

Apart from the fact that those who believe such things need lynching (and probably would be if they sad such things openly), that whole idea is deeply flowed.

For the rich are where they are because they are parasites feeding off the back of the workers, they feel they are superior simply because they are smart enough to have others work for them instead of having to get off their own backsides, where it really a life of survival of the fittest, the upper classes would suffer as they loose the lifeblood that sustains them and be forced to loose money/power.

I'm sure people like Cameron are well aware of the advantages we have as a Capitalist/socialist hybrid country, Take from the poor in tax, in order to give it back to them as benefits to subsidise the rotten wages, then you can continue to charge people a lot for everything while paying them little, while keeping the majority of your money aboard and what little you keep here, intricately laced between all the loopholes so you don't pay tax yourself.

Good point about the rich. If what appear to be her views on inheritance came into effect, then the rich would not start with a silver spoon and success would not be so automatic.

I was wrong about her thinking like environmentalists. Some of her statements about them were that they are trying to extinguish the flame which Prometheus gave to humanity, which is why she was opposed to them.,

"We, in the west, have the personal freedom to drink, fuck, do drugs, consume shit, and talk about things, so long as we don't take any action which attempts to control our own destiny or that of society. Our elections are meaningless. Protest is only legal if symbolic, and easily ignored." ttosca, can I quote this.

"That is why we have governments that govern and laws that we have to abide by. Society takes priority over the individual in some cases, and the law determines the boundaries of freedom" this could equally be said of socialism.

Claig you are apt to quote Orwell Quite a lot, can I ask why? have you read Down and out in paris and road to wigan peer? You do realise that Orwell was a socialist! a democratic socialist.
In animal farm Orwell was critiquing Stalinism not communism.

After Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged she declared herself "the best thinker in the world" and then fell into depression. Clearly such selfish ideas need the chemical cosh of amphetamines, such self regard obviously isn't healthy.

After the credit crisis the Ayn Rand Institute said that the problem had been caused by government intervention and that the only way out of the crisis was less regulation just when I thought it was american banks wrapping up bad mortgage debts in complex financial packages and flogging them to less savvy banks whilst no one was regulating their activities. Silly me.

I have read Down and Out in Paris but not Road to Wigan Pier. I like Orwell because he has great insight, unmasks hypocrisy and spin and casts light on power.

Was Orwell just critcising Stalinism and not Leninism too?

He criticised those who claimed to be communists and claimed to support equality, but in fact believed that some were more equal than others - that "four legs good, two legs better".

He is critcising all hypocrites and impostors who climb to power on the back of the people and deny them their freedom. If you think that that doesn't apply equally to communists and communist parties, then I think you have misunderstood his work.

I don't care if he wa a socialist or not. He understood the deceivers and told us what they were all about.