Why is this book so controversial? I get that the plot and characters are fictional but I thought it was enjoyable, I just appreciated it for what it was. A lot of people I've seen get upset about this book because they think Ayn Rand's philosophy was a bunch of trash, I don't really think it's trash necessarily. Maybe I'm just arrogant, or I live my life by egoism so I understand what John Galt was saying in his speech.
I get that nobody likes an arrogant person, it's like saying "Look at me everyone I'm better than you, so you can eat shit and die" of course people get upset about that. I know that people could argue about this book for hours, but they are arguing basically about Ayn Rand's philosophy and what her philosophy was, she wrote a fucking THREE HOUR speech that people claim was "nonsense" where she could have written that same speech in under ten minutes.
I just like the book, doesn't mean I'm going to fucking live my life by Ayn Rand's creed. I'm not saying we should follow Ayn Rand's philosophy, but I don't think there is anything wrong with following your own PERSONAL, INDIVIDUAL philosophy. I don't give a shit what philosophy people believe in but I think people can follow whatever philosophy corresponds with how they live/see life. For instance in this part of John Galt's speech
"I swear by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." - John Galt
See, I agree somewhat with that statement. I think we all follow multiple philosophies and believe in different things when it comes to morality, ethics, etc. But I think a lot of people were taking Ayn Rand's philosophy and applying it on a global scale, such as how would her philosophy impact the economy? How would impact society if ever single person followed her philosophy? A lot of people claim it's "ludicrous" and a "child-like philosophy" and while I do agree the book is fictional, some things can be taken away from it.
the basic idea of that quote isnn't bad, but there's been years before nad years after of people writing books about that kind of thing that weren't totally retarded and they were just called anarchists
its cause its not very good, but the last third plays out like a decent espionage/prison break thriller
the fountainhead is a lot more interesting
>>28668819
it's a pretty poorly written book anon
>>28668894
Well I wasn't really applying it to the government, anarchist would imply a life without government, right? I don't really have strong or weak views on the government, then again I don't really like to dabble in politics. It's usually a hot button issue that turns into bickering and arguing, I do have my own political views and what not but I didn't apply Ayn Rand's philosophy to government. I was just looking it from an individual viewpoint of how one person could live their life.
>>28668930
I get that, like I said the book is criticized heavily but I feel like it's more to do with Ayn Rand's philosophy and what she is stating in the book. People just seemed very offended and upset by what she was saying, which I get that.
>>28668960
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Now_and_After:_The_ABC_of_Communist_Anarchism
this is a good introduction to anarchism anone
>>28668990
>Not Stirner
If you are going to be a commie, at least be the right kind of commie.
>>28668957
I get if you don't like the book, but just curious what exactly is "poorly written" about it, I mean for a woman who is Russian and English isn't even her primary language. I thought she had a pretty good grasp on the the English language.
>>28668990
Thanks, I just know Anarchism as "No government" though that's probably surface level at best, I never really studied all the in's and out's of Anarchism. I know more about Communism and Socialism more so, of course I don't agree with either.
>>28668990
>Guise, let's make it so there is no state and everyone is equal
>Yeah, brah, that sounds totally awesome!
>Cool, yeah. First, we need to get a massive state, I mean, a state the size that no one has ever seen before. I'm talking, state-run everything. This omni-state will dictate everything about people's lives. Then after that happens, the state will dissolve and everyone will be equal!
I don't know where you stand, but an-soc/an-com is such a joke.
>>28668930
roark was a turbo autist
also he literally rapes a bitch and she falls in love with him lol wut
>>28669038
if you read the link you'd know that that's not what anarchists want
>>28669050
that's why its interesting
there's rape fantasy and BDSM tension in the relationship, also roark blows a fuckin building up
>>28669024
If you're looking at people who are in line with Rand's philosophy and anarchist, look at freedomainradio. The earlier podcasts are all about property rights and government programs and the like.
>>28668819
I think that the people who criticize Atlas Shrugged because of Rand's philosophy are justified in doing so, as her novel was just a vehicle for her philosophy. The characters aren't really people. Take for example John Galt, the perfect man. He is so robotic and devoid of personality.
I say this as someone who likes some of her philosophy.
>>28669024
Anarchism is more than just a rejection the the State. Anarchism is a rejection of all hierarchy which is why the old Anarchists rejected Capitalism because Capitalism breeds hierarchy.
>>28669038
That's actually the Communist way of thinking. The Anarchists thought that if we first outright abolished the State then we would magically become "communists." It's actually the very first split between the Communists and the Anarchists. Look into the relationship between Proudhon and Marx.
>>28669102
no don't do this
after I sent Alexander Berkman you're responding with Stefan "physics is bad because it isn't profitable" Molyneux?
>>28669058
You've just posted it. Of course I haven't read it. My initial instinct is to think that it is an absolute joke.
But, if you give me a summary, I might be more interested in checking it out, a tl;dr version if you will.
>>28669071
also, the shitty '40s movie is basically an erotic thriller
>>28668819
Ayn Rand is fairy tale reading material for overpaid CEOs and bankers who try to make their excesses seem somehow morally valid.
Furthermore there's a reason that Ayn Rand write nearly all fiction - that's the only place her ideas could actually happen.
She detests government and collectivism, but at the same time, the very rules and basic structure of an economy are created by the government and agreed upon by its citizens.
>>28669139
it's written to be easily accessible, you should at least get acquainted with the ideas themselves before you have an opinion
>>28669129
That's a gross oversimplification of what he claims. He says that government funded physics is bad, because there is an incentive to obfuscate and explore things that cannot be proven to get more money.
Anyway, I'm not really interested in diving into a lengthy conversation about this.
>>28669071
dominique is a weird ass bitch.
she thinks roark is a genius but is pissed she lives in a world where he gets shit on for not being conventional
so she decides to marry keating, the exact opposite of roark and tries to fuck up all of roarks shit.
wtf
>>28669176
I'm asking you to introduce the ideas to me if they are different than what I have claimed them to be. If that is the case, I'll look into them more. But, if they are what I expect them to be and what I have experienced of previous communist doctrine, then I'm not going to waste my time reading things that I already know.
>>28669119
Was that you by the way? Because I did not see that before I posted my other comment, and this response has definitely enticed me more into looking into this.
after about halfway through the book it reads like some shitty self-insert fanfic written by a self-indulgent 13 year old edgy pseudointellectual female
that's why the book is so hard to stomach
>>28669229
they're completely different, Marx kicked the anarchists out of the first international
there's no "transition stage"
>>28669180
cause he has to "take" her as a possession and prove he deserves to own her
its pretty kinky
>>28669229
No, I only posted the post about the Communist/Anarchist split.
Anarchist thought is interesting and surprisingly refined. I used to consider myself a proper Anarchist but have since become Statist scum. I think people like to call it "Minarchist" but that's just made up internet meme tier. If you have any questions I can try my best to answer them.
>>28669297
All the anarchists went over to communism after McKinley got killed by one Emma Goldman's little cronies
>>28669324
is this what they teach in american middle schools?
>>28669257
Alright, well thank you for the explanation.
I could support a commune provided that it was voluntary. I might not join, and I might think the people are weird, but I would not harbor any ill-will, and I would be friendly with the individuals--provided they were friendly in return.
My experience has been the relationship between communism and anarchism is that an omni-present omnipotent state will somehow lead to freedom and its own dissolution. That is a fucking joke. It is nice to have my perspective expanded here.
>>28669297
I think that given the society and psychological condition that people live in today, minarchism is a very practical and reasonable response. Ideally, I would say that all relationships should be completely voluntary, abolish the state, etc. But if we were to dismiss it overnight, it would be pandemonium.
I'll take a look into Alexander Berkman's work.
>>28669345
I never learned of Emma Goldman in either middle or highschool. American education is great, senpai. 95% of our history classes can be summed up as "Pilgrims + Indians = Thanksgiving, Tea Party, An assassination of an Archduke caused Europe to freak out, we single-handedly won WWII, fuck the terrorist for 9/11."
>>28669440
You left out:
AMERICA! AMERICA! AMERICA! AMERICA! AMERICA! AMERICA!
AMERICA! AMERICA! AMERICA! AMERICA! AMERICA! AMERICA! AMERICA! AMERICA! AMERICA! AMERICA! AMERICA! AMERICA!
AMERICA! AMERICA! AMERICA! AMERICA! AMERICA! AMERICA! AMERICA! AMERICA! AMERICA! AMERICA! AMERICA! AMERICA!
>>28669430
You say "all relationships should be completely voluntary" and that, depending on where you go with it, will take you down very differing roads when it comes to economic thought.
I simply can't get behind the idea of complete abolition of the State. I tried but looking at the types of people who want to have power over others and the methods they will use to get it made me come to the conclusion we need a bare-bones State to protect our freedom to have as little a state as possible.
>>28669470
Chanted after every lesson. God bless the US of A.
>>28669544
When you say state here, I see emergency services, security, conflict resolution system, etc.
THAT is entirely and totally necessary, but I do not think that taxes--involuntary payment--are the way to provide such a service.
>>28669160
What if I like the idea of egoism? So her philosophy had nothing really to do with egoism? I kind of like the idea of what egoism says, and I also think I care for my own self-interest than other's self interests. I'm not really saying I'm the "perfect man" or anything like that, I just liked John Galt's character and the book in general. Like I said in my original statement, I'm not going to live my life based on Ayn Rand's philosophy. I'm not even applying it on a global scale like you stated, I'm not saying "Oh fuck government and collectivism" or "CEOs and bankers actions are morally just" I'm more looking at it on individual level, if that makes sense. I don't know what type of philosophical viewpoint that would be, it sounds like egoism to me, which is why I chose egoism.
I like Stoicism and Epicureans philosophy as well, even though they were the polar opposites of each other. I feel like those two philosophical viewpoint make up a large portion of how I live/view life, not sure what that means in the grand scheme of things. Could just say about me that I'm retarded/autistic and that I should kill myself, but it's whatever. Everyone follows different philosophies in their life.
>>28669611
Look into the hard Libertarian thought, then. The Anarcho-Capitalists. "Real" Anarchists are simply hardcore idealists who believe humans will be good and everyone will believe in the Anarchist ideal.If you read the Intro to that book the other Anon posted it literally says that war will never happen in an Anarchist societyOkay, technically it would IF everyone held the ideals %100 and I can assure you that certain groups won't have it.The ancaps, though, recognize that some people need monetary incentive and would thus be able to pay people to be soldiers or EMS personal.
However, many, if not all, Anarchists consider ancaps to not be real Anarchists because Capitalism breeds hierarchy.
>>28669160
Nope, you are wrong. It's a fairy tail reading material for those who want to be these bankers and CEOs. Or for those, who want to rationalize their low position in the hierarchy.
>>28669710
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR7dNntU5oI
we are anarchists not because it's easy, but because it's hard
>>28668819
Bad politics trigger people.
>>28669710
Yeah, it does depend the definition of what anarchy is. I see it as no rulers. Others might see it as no rules.
I don't think that structure or a hierarchy is necessarily a bad thing. How it is obtained and managed is what matters to me. I don't like using the term--simply because I don't like using terms to label myself or others--but I would be an-cap/libertarian/voluntarist/etc.
I don't think war would happen, as there would be no state or government to start it. But I do think violence would occur, possibly even on large scales.
>>28669793
>Nope, you are wrong. It's a fairy tail reading material for those who want to be these bankers and CEOs. Or for those, who want to rationalize their low position in the hierarchy.
But at the same time that's like saying what's so wrong with wanting to be a powerful figure in society? Or what's so wrong with wanting to not be on the low end of the hierarchy? I don't think a lot of people want to be viewed as trash by those above them, so I see it more as raising above those above you.
>>28669798
It's a beautiful ideal and an ideal I still cling too. But the only way that the ideal can thrive into reality is if you/we can convince all men to accept our ideals. That's a difficult task, a very difficult task that I don't believe can be done so long as we have such drastic difference of opinions. And until then I will work to minimize the State but keep enough to keep us all safe until we can all have the same ideal.
>>28669843
Well, that's fine to have your own definition but it really doesn't mean anything outside your own head. If I refer to a cat as a "jop" and say to you "my jop is being a dick" it doesn't make sense to you because we are not working in the same linguistic frame. And as it stands "anarchism" has been defined as a rejection of hierarchy and has unfortunately been used by ancaps thus further muddying the waters of discourse.
Violence on a large scale is literally war, anon. The anarchist ideal is such that everyone has the same ideal so no one would want to commit mass violence. Sure there will be those that are criminal murderers but not so much as to create an army to commit mass violence. It's purely ideology. Beautiful yet wishful.
>>28669937
I am perfectly aware of linguistics and what happens if we do not have objective definitions. People have different experiences of things, which does shape the meaning that a word has attached in their mind and how they use it. If someone grows up in a fertile land, an apple will be a pleasant, crunchy, juicy fruit. If they grow up in a barren desert, and apple may be a dry, bitter, vomit-inducing fist-sized smooshy rock. The experience of the word colors people's perspective of it and how they use it.
How is a word defined, if not by how it is used? Who creates this "objective" definition? If anarchy is a rejection of hierarchy? Well, then I am not an anarchist, because I see a hierarchy as a natural state of things. Can a word not change its meaning, or have multiple meanings?
This is why I do not like to use labels. When I do, I ask for the definition of them when I debate someone, to make sure that we are talking about the same thing.
I do not know why you felt it necessary to explain such a basic concept regarding communication with another person to me. I can only assume that you must think that I am mentally deficient in some capacity, and as such, I will take my leave as I do not see that I have anything to gain from further discourse.
>>28670072
What is in a name, anon? What power does naming hold? Does power ultimately come from names? Does names imbue objects with power?
What is in a name, anon? What is in a name?
>>28670072
That word has an explicit definition that has been refined and reiterated by many Anarchist authors since Proudhon first used it to describe himself. The word is not subject to subjective interpretation because it is so explicitly defined. It's not a word that we should allow to devolve into anything else or else we confuse ourselves and more importantly the people who won't take the time to read proper literature to find whether we use their or your definition.
I had no ill intent but your reaction leads me to believe you simply can't be wrong. Words mean specific things especially when they have been so explicitly defined for decades. It's tantamount to trying to switch the scientific names of animals around or using specific philosophical phrases in a specifically different way to confuse and divide.
