I thought I would go ahead and start the “side thread” for the Emma Goldman versus Ayn Rand debate between rwingett and Dr.Scribbles.
Rob, I thought your opening post was articulate and well-presented. I thought your distinction between personal and productive property was a critical one to get out of the way quickly. I have an extremely trivial critique, and a question. However, if it distracts you at all from the debate proper, please let it go.
Trivial critique:
Nietzsche’s ubermensch (thanks for not trying to translate that as superman or overman!) has been a much debated concept subject to many interpretations. Walter Kaufmann, if I remember correctly, stressed the significance of the mensch, which the dictionary defines as a “decent, upright, mature, responsible person.” Nietzsche’s ubermenschen would certainly not act out of a “herd mentality” or a sense of “socialistic” duty or “Christian” self-sacrifice—but would act out of generosity: an ungenerous, despotic ubermensch would not be an ubermensch at all for Nietzsche, on my interpretation anyway. I’m not sure how much of Nietzsche’s ubermensch Rand took, but the idea of a capitalist robber-baron does not fit with my interpretation. (This may well be a critique of Rand and not you; again, it is trivial to your presentation, I know).
Question:
In the face of institutional capitalism, how do you get to the kind of equality you’re talking about without state governance (e.g. child-labor laws, regulation of public utilities, etc.)? In other words, how does anarchism fetter unfettered capitalism at least enough to remove the monopolistic and hierarchical tendencies you mention? The socialist view seems to be that these are precisely the functions of the state. In a “mixed economy” like the U.S., this is the teeter-totter that rocks back and forth: laissez-faire on one side, state governance on the other. Is the anarchist answer through labor unions and cooperatives—and in the long term, education so that it is not an eternal power struggle? I likely don’t understand it well, but the anarchist vision seems at first blush to be a bit utopian…
___________________________
“If I can’t dance, it’s not my revolution!” Emma Goldman
"I would believe only in a god who could dance." Friedrich Nietzsche
Originally posted by vistesdNietzsche expends a lot of effort explaining why robber barons are not übermenschen, but in my opinion it's a lot of smoke and mirrors. He claims to mean one thing, but in practice it works out to quite another. The same can be said for Rand. She claims Objectivism means one thing, but it really works out to be quite something else once you've scratched beneath the surface of her pseudo-philosophical rhetoric. At least that is the interpretation I'm going on.
I thought I would go ahead and start the “side thread” for the Emma Goldman versus Ayn Rand debate between rwingett and Dr.Scribbles.
Rob, I thought your opening post was articulate and well-presented. I thought your distinction between personal and productive property was a critical one to get out of the way quickly. I have an extremely trivial c ...[text shortened]... ution!” Emma Goldman
"I would believe only in a god who could dance." Friedrich Nietzsche
I'm not sure I understand the second half of your question. Do you mean 'how is an anarchist system supposed to be brought about?' Or is it 'how is such a system to be maintained?' Or both? Or neither?
Originally posted by rwingettWell, we’re in disagreement about Nietzsche, though he had a lot of faults (his gross misogyny for one). But Nietzsche left himself open to a lot of interpretations (and consistency was not his particular hobgoblin)—unlike Rand, who I think went to great pains to remove the possibility of being interpreted in any other way than how she wanted to be. Nietzsche really didn’t have a political agenda either, which Rand clearly did.
Nietzsche expends a lot of effort explaining why robber barons are not übermenschen, but in my opinion it's a lot of smoke and mirrors. He claims to mean one thing, but in practice it works out to quite another. The same can be said for Rand. She claims Objectivism means one thing, but it really works out to be quite something else once you've scratched ben ...[text shortened]... brought about?' Or is it 'how is such a system to be maintained?' Or both? Or neither?
An interesting note: I don’t recall any robber barons in Atlas Shrugged either. The “barons” were either pure, creative and heroic entrepreneurs or non-profit-maximizing slugs in thrall to a vague social vision. No Ken Lays there.
With regard to my question, simply put: Given the existing capitalist framework in, say, the U.S., which is subject to legal constraints (again, child labor laws for example), how do you get the equality of anarchism without using the state to impose it (say, through socializing all productive property and redistributing income)? The socialist solution I understand; the anarchist one I don’t.
Again, good stuff, well done. I look forward to Scrib’s first post.
Originally posted by vistesdOf course Rand presents her characters as heroic entrepreneurs. She's trying to present Objectivism in the best possible light. But her's is a work of fiction. Things only turn out that way in her books. If her system were put into action in real life, you'd end up with Ken Lay and not John Galt. That's my point. She desires a certain outcome, but the means she prescribes to reach it would inevitably result in a very different outcome. The same with Nietzsche. He says that an übermensch should act one way, but if people were really free to act as Nietzsche thinks an übermensch should, they would turn out very differently from what Nietzsche had in mind. They each preach a course of action that they claim will end with a particular result. My claim is that in both cases the end result would be very different from what they desired.
Well, we’re in disagreement about Nietzsche, though he had a lot of faults (his gross misogyny for one). But Nietzsche left himself open to a lot of interpretations (and consistency was not his particular hobgoblin)—unlike Rand, who I think went to great pains to remove the possibility of being interpreted in any other way than how she wanted to be. Nietzs ...[text shortened]... anarchist one I don’t.
Again, good stuff, well done. I look forward to Scrib’s first post.
I'll come back to your question about anarchism at a later time.
I just chanced upon the Goldman v. Rand (or Rob v. Scribs, as the title goes) thread earlier today; and I am looking forward to some high quality debate. I don't know if this format will be pursued in the future, but a few suggestions:
(a) I think that, for any debate, a proposition must be clearly set forth - for one party to defend and one party to refute. The proposition can be stated in such terms so that each party has an affirmative position to defend in addition to refuting the other's position.
(b) A minor point, but I think the party starting the debate must also get to make the closing statement. The reason simply is that the party going second has the chance to make rebuttals from the get-go and reversing the order in the final statement restores parity. In this case, it might not matter because Rob has started off with what seems like pretty much a rebuttal speech.
That said, I have read Rob's post with some interest and have a couple of questions (which he may want to answer only at a later stage in the debate, or after it is over, or it might be answered in the debate itself):
(1) What, precisely, is anarchist socialism? I think I echo vistesd's confusion here.
(2) Rob writes:
It would be a grave mistake to assume that an anarchist system would eventually degenerate into a Soviet style dictatorship.
As it stands, this claim is unsupported (or only vaguely supported) by the points preceding and following it. How does one justify this assertion?
(3) It seems to me that Rob is applying a "will this work in the real world?" standard to objectivism that he does not apply to anarchist socialism. For instance, he speaks of how objectivism would really end up being a tyranny of the privileged few (my words, not his). It is not apparent to me why this should not happen with anarchist socialism.
(4) On a related note, Rob observes that anarchist socialism would be analogous to the Prisoner's Dilemma Game (PDG) where players would rationally choose the most cooperative strategy as it has the maximal long-term payoff. First, it is not clear to me that all situations one would encounter in real life would be reducible to PDG and hence would have a cooperative solution. Second, the cooperative solution of PDG is only the optimal solution when there is no flow of information between the players, or there is complete flow of information. Where I am aware of another player's choice prior to making my own, I will not necessarily opt for the cooperative strategy. And this would be more reflective of several real-life situations.
Looking forward to an interesting and entertaining debate.
Originally posted by lucifershammerI think I would rather not carry on this side discussion at the moment. I'll contribute more at a later time.
I just chanced upon the Goldman v. Rand (or Rob v. Scribs, as the title goes) thread earlier today; and I am looking forward to some high quality debate. I don't know if this format will be pursued in the future, but a few suggestions:
(a) I think that, for any debate, a proposition must be clearly set forth - for one party to defend and one ...[text shortened]... eral real-life situations.
Looking forward to an interesting and entertaining debate.