好几年前和美国客观主义者的论战

马列托主义者

记得好几年前，我试图在网上找一个马克思主义的英文论坛，可惜没有找到，（不知这里的网友有没有人有知道马克思主义的英文论坛），我找到了一个美国客观主义论坛，我不知道该论坛到底是什么，我就以marxist的名称注册了，后来收到一个消息：你是如羊进入了狼穴。客观主义原来是一门反其他学说特别是马克思主义的学说，艾因兰德出生生活与苏俄后流亡美国的作家，她创立了客观主义学说。
我现在有点明白什么是客观主义了，就是除了劳动和交易获得好处外反对用枪干预个人自由，是自由主义的哲学表达，该论坛版主还从美国寄送一本兰德的书《自私的美德》给我，现在放在我的书柜上，也没有全部读。我是反对客观主义的，不过在爱情观上，我倒同意客观主义：

下面是客观主义爱情观也是我接受的爱情观（不过我不是一个客观主义者）:
Of the various pleasure that man can offer himself, the greatest is pride - the pleasure he takes in his own achievements and in the creation of his own character. The pleasure he takes in the character and achievements of another being is that of admiration. The highest expression of these two responses - pride and admiration - is romantic love. Its celebration is sex.
　　-----------------AYN RAND
根据美国艾因*兰德的客观主义哲学：为了获得幸福或者快乐,一个人必须首先从自己的成就和自己的内在和外在的素质的提高当中得到（就是自豪）.
还有一个地方一个人可以获得幸福或者快乐的地方就是另一个人的成就和他（她）的内在和外在的素质那里得到（就是敬慕）.
这两者结合起来带来的幸福或者快乐是最高的幸福和快乐（就是爱情），性是其庆贺。

下面是我当时和他们的论战（这场论战我认为我是赢了，最终他们限制我继续论战下去）：

马列托主义者

Who Will Win: Marx or Christ?...
what do you mean about marx?
i am not an american.
can anyone here in american tell me the marxism's position in USA. does anyone in USA get a systematic marxism education.
what is america style marxism in the future and if it is possible for USA to be a socilism society within next 20years.
Edited by softwareNerd, 15 June 2006 - 03:46 AM.
#2 Bold Standard
Posted 13 June 2006 - 11:07 AM
marxist, on Jun 13 2006, 02:46 AM, said:
what do you mean about marx?
i am not an american.
can anyone here in american tell me the marxism's position in USA. does anyone in USA get a systematic marxism education.
what is america style marxism in the future and if it is possible for USA to be a socilism society within next 20years.

No political party built consistently on an explicitly Marxist platform is taken seriously in the US.  But there are strong elements of socialism built into our political framework even at the present time.  Marxist influence can be detected in the positions of both parties (Republicans tend to favor social controls and Democrats favor economic ones).  America is not "capitalist," it is a "mixed economy," which means it has elements of freedom (capitalism, individual rights, representative government) and tyranny (socialism, oppression, dictatorship) mixed up together (with the majority of politicians existing somewhere in the "middle of the road" between these two extremes).  For the past 100 years or so, America has been moving slowly in the direction of socialism-- but in the next 20 years, I'd say anything can happen.  I don't know about a "systematic" Marxist education, but it's certainly true that Karl Marx's ideas are highly visible on American college campuses.  It seems to me that Marxist intellectuals have for the most part, lost their fire and commitment in the past couple of decades.  Hence the disintegration of the Democratic Party (which was traditionally more open about accepting Marxism than the Republicans).  What is the future for the Marxists?  I'd say they'll keep trying to convince people that the dismal failure of every attempt at socialism in every country throughout the world is not socialism's fault, and that they'll eventually fade out completely, as their position becomes more and more obviously absurd; and as supporters of capitalism such as Objectivists become more successful at advocating a systematic, viable alternative.  But maybe I'm being overly optimistic.
"Man's life is the standard of morality, but your own life is its purpose. If existence on earth is your goal, you must choose your actions and values by the standard of that which is proper to man--for the purpose of preserving, fulfilling and enjoying the irreplaceable value which is your life." -Ayn Rand

马列托主义者

#3 marxist
Posted 14 June 2006 - 05:19 PM
what do you mean about socialism? as per your thread, can i conclude that you consider the socialism as the tyranny. do you ever study On Capital (Ⅲ)? what do you think of chinese socialism?
in additon, could you please explain Objectivists to me, thanks in advance.
#4 softwareNerd
Posted 14 June 2006 - 06:17 PM
Marxist, Welcome to the forum.

I suggest you go to the Ayn Rand Institute web-site and read the information they have got. Then, you might try our Wiki.

Are you able to order books from Amazon or from EBay etc.? If so, we can recommend some. Just recently I heard that a mainland Chinese publisher is in discussions to publish Ayn Rand's books in Mandarin; but that will probably take a while.

At least read those web-links, to get an overview.
| New Blog |
Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise -- Peter Gabriel
#5 Bold Standard
Posted 14 June 2006 - 09:31 PM
marxist, on Jun 14 2006, 07:19 PM, said:
what do you mean about socialism? as per your thread, can i conclude that you consider the socialism as the tyranny. do you ever study On Capital (Ⅲ)? what do you think of chinese socialism?
in additon, could you please explain Objectivists to me, thanks in advance.

In short, I'm using socialism to stand for any political system in which the government has the power to seize private property through force, or to meddle in the "private sector", creating monopolies with which private businesses cannot compete, etc.  I believe that Statism is the tyranny, in all of its variations-- socialism, Nazism, fascism, communism, etc.  Capitalism, in its purest sense (unregulated, "laissez-faire" capitalism), I define as a political system which consistently upholds individual rights (personal rights belonging solely to individuals)-- including "life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness." I've studied Marx, but I haven't personally read all of Das Kapital.  I'm only a student, and haven't studied Chinese socialism in depth, but I understand that in certain contexts, "socialism" is viewed as a "less extreme" form of "communism" (which is a system in which there is no private property or individual rights of any kind).  If that's how you define it, I guess socialism is "better" than communism; but only as a matter of degree, not better in kind.

You see, what I call "capitalism" is a totally different approach to government, with different goals from socialism-- private property, representative government, individual rights, unregulated free markets, etc., exist in a capitalist system primarily for the purpose of allowing the minds of individuals to rise to their fullest potential, unhindered, to fulfill their own "selfish" ends (pursuit of happiness), "neither sacrificing themselves to others, or others to themselves" (to paraphrase Ayn Rand).  And all of the values that these individuals create--  all the wealth, the technology, the innovations, inventions, etc., that they bring into existence, and all of the incalculable benefits which society experiences as a result of this, are noted and appreciated, but are secondary results, and not the primary justification for the existence of the capitalist system.  The primary justification is the sanctity of the individual; the triumph of "right" over "might"; recognition of the fact that a human mind requires freedom to think on its own, and not to be forced to pursue goals which are foreign to it; and the recognition that Man is not a "sacrificial animal," but is rather an end in himself.

Objectivism is a philosophical system (which extends to all branches of philosophy, not limited to politics, but including metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics) which was created and espoused by the 20th century novelist/philosopher, Ayn Rand.  Miss Rand was born in Russia in 1905.  She witnessed the Kerensky Revolution, and then the Bolshevik Revolution, first hand.  She was educated in a Soviet university (she studied Das Kapital).  She was a fierce opponent of communism and a staunch individualist, even while she lived in Russia.  Knowing that her political ideas were placing herself and her family in danger, she escaped Russia and came to America in 1926.  She wrote for the movies, became famous as a novelist, and then as a philosopher.

Her most important works explicitly regarding politics are Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal (non-fiction, 1966), and Atlas Shrugged (fiction, 1957).
Edited by Bold Standard, 14 June 2006 - 09:35 PM.
"Man's life is the standard of morality, but your own life is its purpose. If existence on earth is your goal, you must choose your actions and values by the standard of that which is proper to man--for the purpose of preserving, fulfilling and enjoying the irreplaceable value which is your life." -Ayn Rand

马列托主义者

#6 marxist
Posted 14 June 2006 - 11:06 PM
I think you misunderstand the socialism. I would say that the Statism like the Soviet Union and China is not socialism at all. In socialism society, the planned economy under worker’s democracy means the most to socialism. As you know, in capitalism, there are economic crisis, so we need the planned economy under worker’s democracy to solve it. In capitlism, the workers or the most of the people only have the “right” to sell their labour force and have the virtual individual rights as they are under the rule of the capitalist. Now america is a rich and developed country while many other countrys are still poor and undeveloped. What would happened to america if there are no these many other countrys in the world. Can you live well without other people around you. socialism means the real freedom and no one and nothing would force him to do what he don’t want to do in socialism society while in capitalism, the boss and the capital force you to do what you don’t want to do. In socialism society, Man is not a "sacrificial animal," but a free man with ample human nature.

As to the Objectivism, I got to know something about it by your kind explaining and
Ayn Rand Institute web-site , but can you confirm it means another fierce opponent of communism and a staunch individualist

In short, I think maybe your socialism and communism or any other “ism” are not mine.
#7 Bold Standard
Posted 15 June 2006 - 01:46 AM
marxist, on Jun 15 2006, 01:06 AM, said:
I would say that the Statism like the Soviet Union and China is not socialism at all.

There are different kinds of Statism.  USSR was, and China is communist.  Germany, in WWII was Nazi.  Socialism is much milder-- England comes to mind (maybe there are better examples of socialist countries).  Socialism has been described as a "transitional" stage between capitalism and dictatorship.
Quote
In socialism society, the planned economy under worker’s democracy means the most to socialism. As you know, in capitalism, there are economic crisis, so we need the planned economy under worker’s democracy to solve it.
What is this "planning"?  It is some people ("the regime") telling others what to do.  Not just telling, but forcing; and confiscating property.  Professionals can handle crises fine on their own without bureaucrats, who sometimes know nothing about how to solve the problem, "helping" them in this manner.  Even if central planning were able to solve crises efficiently, which it has never been able to do successfully in any country in history, it is still immoral inasmuch as it prevents people from being the beneficiaries of their own actions.  Instead of one person acting, selling his labor, for instance, or (more importantly) selling his ideas, and keeping the profit he makes;  one person acts, and "society" benefits-- but the profits are stolen from the man who earned them (compulsory taxation is just one means to that end), and "redistributed" to others who haven't earned them.  This is unjust.  And unnecessary (for society), because free markets have proven themselves as the most efficient solvers of the various "crises" that can arise.  Even if it were not so, freedom would be worth the additional risk of possible crises.
Quote
In capitalism, the workers or the most of the people only have the “right” to sell their labor force and have the virtual individual rights as they are under the rule of the capitalist.

The workers also have the right to invest the money they make, from the labor they sell, and to buy their own means of production.  This is how we have the phenomenon of the "self-made-man," who never existed before capitalism.
Quote
Now America is a rich and developed country while many other countries are still poor and undeveloped. What would happened to America if there are no these many other countries in the world. Can you live well without other people around you.
You can live well without others, although the values gained from trading with others are immense.  Americans would have to work a lot harder if all of the other countries were to suddenly vanish.  But, to the extent we are free, we could survive.
Quote
Socialism means the real freedom and no one and nothing would force him to do what he don’t want to do in socialism society while in capitalism, the boss and the capital force you to do what you don’t want to do.

In capitalism, a boss can never force you to do something you don't want to do.  You can always quit your job, and get another one or start your own business.  The reason that a socialistic regime can force people is this-- they have the guns.  If someone in a capitalist system threatens to kill or abduct you if you don't do what they want, you call the police.  In a socialist system--  it is the police threatening to kill or abduct you if you don't do what they want. (I know I'm simplifying, but, in essence..)
Quote
As to the Objectivism, I got to know something about it by your kind explaining and
Ayn Rand Institute web-site , but can you confirm it means another fierce opponent of communism and a staunch individualist
Yes, that's the end result of it.  But there are more fundamental or underlying premises which Objectivism identifies that lead it to that conclusion.  Ayn Rand once said, "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows."

It is Objectivism's theory of knowledge (its "epistemology"), its theory of the nature of reality (its "metaphysics"), and its uncompromising consistency which make it most unique.  Individualism and anti-communism are strong elements of Ayn Rand's ethical/political stance, so they are important elements of Objectivism (but they do not exhaust the entire contents of Objectivism).  To put that a different way, collectivism and pro-communism would be antithetical to the philosophy of Objectivism.  Or a third way:  it's possible to be an individualist and an anti-communist without being an Objectivist, but if you are an Objectivist, you must be an individualist and an anti-communist (Objectivism is one "species" of the "genus" individualism and anti-communism).
Quote
In short, I think maybe your socialism and communism or any other “ism” are not mine.

Well, maybe not.  Of course, you must believe something, but there's no reason it has to be anything that's been organized into a formal political position (and even so, there's no guarantee that I'm personally aware of it).
Edited by Bold Standard, 15 June 2006 - 02:15 AM.
"Man's life is the standard of morality, but your own life is its purpose. If existence on earth is your goal, you must choose your actions and values by the standard of that which is proper to man--for the purpose of preserving, fulfilling and enjoying the irreplaceable value which is your life." -Ayn Rand

马列托主义者

更多请看下面链接：

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=6938&hl=%2Bsocialism+%2Bcapitalism

注：客观主义者的思维方式和国内右派是一模一样的