Ayn Rand and Objectivism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sherlock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Matt16_18,

It is true that Objectivism cannot be reconciled with Catholic social teaching. Reagan’s policies, on the other hand, can. For Pete’s sake, use some common sense here: Objectivism, in addition to its atheism, rejects any kind of societal “safety net”—conservative policies do not. Objectivism’s politics are Libertarian—Reagan represented conservative values. Or are you saying that only liberals can be good Catholics, while conservatives cannot? What garbage.

My initial post was regarding Objectivism. Stick to the topic, please, or take your theories to the politics list.
 
Matt16_18,

I’ll add one more item: some years ago, Fr. Fessio spoke at a Chesterton conference I attended. His talk was on Islam, but before he got into the meat of his talk he made the comment, “George Bush is our second Catholic President.” He paused, and said (to much applause), “Ronald Reagan was our first.”

Fr. Fessio certainly qualifies as an orthodox Catholic. (And, I might add, if he were to post here he would be given a green square, not a blue one.)

If you want to discuss Objectivism, go for it. If you want to pin that extreme label on conservativism, you are out in left field.
 
40.png
Sherlock:
From one of the links regarding Objectivism, I thought this little paragraph put it nicely:

“In short, Objectivism is a sort of cliff note intellectualism for people
too busy, lazy, or stupid to actually be intellectuals. The
contradiction of a supremacy theory predicated upon the ‘superiority of
smart people’ that itself is characterized by and logical
inconsistencies, emotional reductionism, poor scholarship and, as a last
resort, suppression of dissent has, of course, delighted liberals and
other left-wingers for decades. For ‘management’ class (or wannabe
management-class) kids who subscribe to Objectivism (the ‘challenge to
2,000-and-a-half years of cultural tradition’), it provides a
simplistic, narcissistic justification to expropriate as much surplus
value from workers as biologically possible and politically feasible.”
Click to expand...
Sounds like religion.
 
Sherlock

Or are you saying that only liberals can be good Catholics, while conservatives cannot? What garbage.

No, I am not saying that at all. Why do you insist on reading into my comments things I haven’t said?

Certainly a Catholic should see that much of what the Democrats serve up is totally incompatible with what the Church teaches. But it should be equally obvious that Republican politics are also problematic for a Catholic, and that it is impossible for a Catholic to wholeheartedly embrace Republican politics. I enjoy posting to this forum, but I am alarmed at the number of knee-jerk conservatives that seem to lack all ability for critical thinking when it comes to politics. The Republican Party has been, and continues to be, a great source of evil in the world, just as the Democratic Party has been, and contiunes to be a great source of evil.

What we need is a new political party that a Catholic can embrace with enthusiasm, instead of the dreary “lesser of two evils” choices that we must make when choosing between what the Republicans and Democrats have to offer. Both parties are antiCatholic in many ways.
  • My initial post was regarding Objectivism. Stick to the topic, please, or take your theories to the politics list.*
I am sticking to the topic. You just don’t want to accept that Positive Objectivism was the foundation of Reaganomics. I am surprised that you don’t realize this fact, since you claimed to have studied Objectivism extensively.
  • His talk was on Islam, but before he got into the meat of his talk he made the comment, “George Bush is our second Catholic President.” He paused, and said (to much applause), “Ronald Reagan was our first.” *
George Bush is a Protestant and so was Ronald Reagan. All Protestants are heretics, at least materially, if not formally. I am not sure why Fr. Fessio would make such an inane statement. Perhaps if I knew the context of such a comment it would make sense.
 
[QUOTECertainly a Catholic should see that much of what the Democrats serve up is totally incompatible with what the Church teaches. But it should be equally obvious that Republican politics are also problematic for a Catholic, and that it is impossible for a Catholic to wholeheartedly embrace Republican politics. I enjoy posting to this forum, but I am alarmed at the number of knee-jerk conservatives that seem to lack all ability for critical thinking when it comes to politics. The Republican Party has been, and continues to be, a great source of *evil in the world, just as the Democratic Party has been, and contiunes to be a great source of evil. What we need is a new political party that a Catholic can embrace with enthusiasm, instead of the dreary “lesser of two evils” choices that we must make when choosing between what the Republicans and Democrats have to offer. Both parties are antiCatholic in many ways.

Wach out, Matt 16_18, you’re challenging one of the most cherished notions in modern American Catholicism, and Christianity, that Reagan was a de facto Catholic saint, and that corporate capitalism is the Christian economic system. Of course, anyone who has read the Fathers on economics would know that isn’t true, but few on this board have. Expect scathing attacks as long you continue down this road. Joe
 
Yeah, watch out Matt, becuz we all know that all Conservatives (i.e., sons of Satan) will git yew under that there mind control. Kinda like Satan doin’ his work wit dat VATICAN, and all of dem other evil spirits…Oh yeah, them REPUBLIKANZ be spreadin’ that idea of the “SANCTITY of LIFE” and all them other crazee ideas.

Oh yeah. I be So at Home wit da Holy Father, but I guess that in your most Holy eyes I be a Bad Catholic, cuz I think that socilaism be so bad. Me bad. Pope Leo Xlll bad. Stoopid conservatives.

Well, all of this tells me (as if I needed any reminder) that extremism in the cause of Objectivism, or any other kind of “ism”, is fairly fruitless. Nevertheless, there are those on this list who think that they are being—oh, so brave!!—in being against Bad Things.

Reagan was Bad. Bad things are Bad. So much for rational discourse…I doan need no brain, I jist need feelinz…
 
Since those who want to dicuss this don’t have the sense to bring this topic to the politics list, I feel somewhat compelled to respond.

jco2004 wrote: :“Wach out, Matt 16_18, you’re challenging one of the most cherished notions in modern American Catholicism, and Christianity, that Reagan was a de facto Catholic saint, and that corporate capitalism is the Christian economic system.”

I’m just a Chestertonian, and so to the extent that I can be said to be attached to any form of thinking regarding social constructs, I have to say that here we have a typical, stupid, non-thinking “answer” in the best fashion of modern thinking. There is, in this dumb mouthing of words, a flurry of cheap sentiments without any actual accounting of thought. But hope springs eternal, and the mouth is moving, and therefore we have the idea posited that “Reagan was a de facto Catholic saint”. Oh, this is so-o-o much easier than having to engage in rational discourse.

Funny----although I admired the late President, I have never thought to put him so quickly into the category of “saint”. But then, I’m not a liberal, and so I will freely admit to not understanding the “thought processes” that liberals use to designate modern-day saints. Even by the “sainthood” concepts of modernism (kill all the unwanted children), Reagan would seem an odd choice for those moderns as he was not in favor of unrestricted abortion–now just what was up with THAT?

I have to admit to not understanding all of that anti-Reagan stuff…you know, I’m just a plain feller and so to me socialism is socialism. It seems to me that if some dimwits want to link all “conservatives” with an extremist position (Objectivism), than it is, in fairness, appropriate to link those with liberal sentiments to Marxism. Now, that might just unkindly, but then I would just be returning the favor; sharing the example of those “righteous people”—oh yeah, folks just so-o-o much better than you or me…
 
Sherlock

I’m just a plain feller and so to me socialism is socialism.

The Church has never condemned the Christian forms of socialism (e.g. the life of a cloistered monk or nun that share all their worldly possesions in common). What the Church has condemned is atheistic utopian ideology based on Marx and Engles’ philosophy of dialectical materialism. In the end, there is little real difference between the dialectical materialism of Marx and Engles and the rationalist materialism of Ayn Rand.

The Church has also never give carte blanche approval to all forms of capitalism. There is such a thing as atheistic capitalism that is imbued with a spirit of antichrist. The Social Darwinism of the robber barons is such a system. So was the captialism of Hilter’s Reich that used slave labor to increase the profits of the owners of the armament industries. The sweatshop child labor that WalMart uses to supply cheap goods in its stores is more closely related to Hitlerian capitalism than that of the Catholic ideal of a just economic system. Capitalism with an antichrist spirit is one of the biggest problems facing the world today. Catholics need to speak out against it, not defend it.

It seems to me that if some dimwits want to link all “conservatives” with an extremist position (Objectivism), than it is, in fairness, appropriate to link those with liberal sentiments to Marxism.

Of course, only a dimwit would do either. I am not a dimwit.

You just seem to have a great deal of difficulty accepting the historical fact that Laffer and the other economists that constructed the theoretical ideology of Reagonomics were disciples of Ayn Rand. What’s the deal with that? You want to discuss the faults of Positve Objectivism, and yet you cannot seem to bear the thought that Reagonomics is based on Rand’s ideology. Reaganomics is a perfect example of what happens when Rand’s ideology is implemented in the real world.

It is worthwhile exercise to critique Reaganomics to see how well it implemented Catholic teaching about social justice and just economics.
 
Matt16:18, I am trying to understand your logic. Could you please correct me if I misunderstand your position?

a) Many people at the Hoover institute were Objectivists.
b) Objectivism is inherently anti-Catholic/anti-Christian because its teachings contradict those of Christianity.
c) People at the Hoover institute formulated the Supply-Side economics theory.
d) Therefore, all people who support supply-side economic theories are supporting a objectivist, anti-Christian philosophy.

Did I miss something/read something into your words that wasn’t there?
 
Matt16_18,

You wrote: “The Church has also never give carte blanche approval to all forms of capitalism”

I never said that it did. Nor do I, for that matter: I mentioned earlier that I am a Chestertonian, and his ideas (and Belloc’s) regarding Distributism are appealling to me. Nor do I care for large corporations per se: smaller is usually better, in my book, and so I try to apply that in my everyday life (incuding spending far more at the local hardware store instead of going the cheaper route at Home Depot).“Pure” Capitalism, such as Rand was in favor of, is problematic, to put it mildly. However, we are closer to socialism then we are to a laissez-faire economy, and I think that is the wrong direction to be heading in.

Regarding socialism: of course the Church “has never condemned the Christian forms of socialism (e.g. the life of a cloistered monk or nun that share all their worldly possesions in common).” The key word there is Christian…Leo Xlll, in his encyclical “Rerum Novarum”, had this to say about Socialism: “To cure this evil (exploitation of workers by employers), the Socialists, exciting the envy of the poor toward the rich, contend that it is necessary to do away with private possession of goods and in its place make the goods of individuals common to all, and that the men who preside over a municipality or who direct the entire State should act as administrators of these goods. They hold that, by such a transfer of private goods from private individuals to the community, they can cure the present evil through dividing wealth and benefits equally among the citizens.”
(to be continued…)
 
LeoXlll on Socialism, continued:

“But their program is so unsuited for terminating the conflict that it actually injures the workers themselves. Moreover, it is highly unjust because it violates the rights of lawful owners, perverts the functions of the State, and throws governments into utter confusion”.

“Therefore, inasmuch as the Socialists seek to transfer the goods of private persons to the community at large, they make the lot of all wage earners worse, because in abolishing the freedom to dispose of wages they take away from them by this very act the hope and the opportunity of increasing their property and of securing advantages for themselves.”

“There is no reason to interpose provision by the State, for man is older than the State. Wherefore he had to possess by nature his own right to protect his life and body before any polity had been formed.”

“To desire, therefore, that the civil power should enter arbitrarily into the privacy of homes is a great and pernicious error. If a family perchance is in such extreme difficulty and is so completely without plans that it is entirely unable to help itself, it is right that the distress be remedied by public aid, for each individual family is a part of the community. Similarly, if anywhere there is a grave violation of mutual rights within the family walls, public authority shall restore to each his right: for this is not usurping the rights of citizens, but protecting and confirming them with just and due care. Those in charge of public affairs, however, must stop here: nature does not permit them to go beyond these limits. Paternal authority is such that it can be neither abolished or absorbed by the Sate, because it has the same origin in common with that of man’s own life.”
“Inasmuch as the Socialists, therefore, disregard care by parents and in its place introduce care by the State, they act against natural justice and dissolve the structure of the home.”

I could go on, but that’s enough. I especially find the last sentence to be prophetic, as the welfare state has essentially replaced fatherhood in some communities.
 
Sanosuke

Therefore, all people who support supply-side economic theories are supporting a objectivist, anti-Christian philosophy.

Supply side economic theories are really just the implementation of Ayn Rand’s political philosophy in the social systems of the USA. Ayn Rand’s philosophy might be somewhat differently be applied in China.

To answer your question, I believe that you are following my arguments.

Ayn Rand’s philosophy can be summed up this way: “Let the rich get richer, and the poor will get what they deserve”.
 
Sherlock

Why are you now discussing Socialism? You started this thread to discuss Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Positive Objectivism.

IMO, it would be best to start a different thread to discuss Socialism.
 
I am going to be going on a trip soon, so I apologize if this is my last post in this thread for a while.

Matt16_18, I have a few qualms about the logical progression that is being proposed here. First of all, just because many objectivists support a theory, that does not mean that all people who support the theory are objectivists.

Let me give you an example. Darwin came up with the basic theory of evolution. Darwin seemed to believe in some sort of prime causation for the universe, though he certainly was not Christian. For the sake of naming his philosophy, I will name it philosophy X.

Now, following the logic stated above, I must assume that all atheists espouse philosophy X if they support evolution. According to the logic in question, if a person with philosophy X creates a new theory, then all people who support that theory must support philosophy X, even if the two are completely unrelated. Since we know that not all atheists believe in philosophy X, the logic must be faulty.

It seems as though you are arguing that supply-side economics is inherently Objectivist. Your logic is that because an Objectivist/a person from an institution which has many Objectivists in it (I briefly looked online and found no information that says that Laffer was an Objectivist) created a theory, then the theory must be Objectivist. That simply is not true.

I think it has been pointed out that Rand’s philosophy is more correctly associated with libertarianism. Rand supports an extreme version of lazzez faire (sp?) economics, meaning little or no government control of anything. Supply-side economics makes so such claim. Although some supply-siders may also advocate extreme laizzez faire principles, that does not mean that all supporters of extreme laizzez faire principles are supply-siders.

I have met many supply-siders who support government subsidies of farmers, a return to the gold standard, public, federally funded education, and other federal programs. I think you are making the mistake of associating all people in a certain group with an extremist position, something which can easily be refuted by showing that supporters of a certain theory do not all hold a certain extreme position. Conservative does not equal libertarian. Although I have traces of support for supply-side economics in my blood, I have never been considered a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination.

Reagan was a very prolific writer. He mentions his faith many times: he even invoked America’s faith in God as its strength, while calling the USSR’s faith in man to be a grave weakness. Reagan himself came from a meager background. I wonder what he would say if he heard someone say that he–being a supply-sider–was advocating making the poor poorer and the rich richer.

I admit that I am rather conservative (although I always put my Church first). Although I disagree with liberals on many issues, I never accuse them of wanting to harm their fellow man in any economic issue. To claim that an entire group of people has nothing but greed on their mind is blatant stereotyping, a thing which should be avoided.

I think the burden of proof is on you to prove that supply-side economics espouses Rand’s philosophy. Simply pointing at the people (or the institution) that created the theory is not proof, nor is pointing at the actions of some of its advocates. I can point to several non-supply siders who have exploited the poor, too. However, that does not mean that Keynesian ecnonomists are all evil. Such an argument would be absurd.
 
Matt16_18,

First, I should apologize for the tone of my posts last night: I was tired and was venting more than I was making sense. I just re-read them and thought to myself, “Sherlock, don’t post when your brain is tired…”

But regarding your last post:

I mentioned Socialism because you stated that the Church has never condemned the Christian forms of socialism. I was merely pointing out that the Church has expressed concern with socialism in general. So, in answer to your question, “Why are you now discussing Socialism?”, because, umm, you brought the subject up. I am pleased that you would like to discuss Objectivism, though the idea that Reaganomics is equatable with it is laughable. Reagan was a conservative, not an Objectivist. Your logic is flawed here, which I think Sanosuke has demonstrated well—well enough for me to simply agree with him instead of belaboring the point.

I am generally a conservative in my leanings, though, like Sanosuke, my Catholicism always comes first. This means that I’m not going to agree with all conservative positions, but certainly most fit quite well into my Catholicism. No one has ever accused me of being a Libertarian, which is associated with Objectivism. An Objectivist I know makes it very clear that she is no conservative—the suggestion offends her, as it logically would, given her Objectivist philosophy.
 
Sanosuke,

Your last post was excellent, it put so very eloquently what I was thinking as I was reading through this thread.
 
Sanosuke

Matt16_18, I have a few qualms about the logical progression that is being proposed here. First of all, just because many objectivists support a theory, that does not mean that all people who support the theory are objectivists.

What does that matter? If someone is supporting a theory that is antichrist in spirit, they are still opposing Christ even if they are not aware of it. This happens all the time. Protestant fundamentalists believe in OSAS, even though OSAS is totally opposed to the Gospel of Christ. Does a Protestant that believes in OSAS typically think that he is pushing a doctrine that is opposed to the doctrines that Christ left his church? No. The Protestant teaching the doctrine of OSAS is laboring for Satan’s Kingdom through ignorance, not intent.

It is the same is true with people who support the Objectivist agenda even though they have no desire to be Objectivists. They are laboring for Satan’s kingdom through ignorance, not intent.

I think it has been pointed out that Rand’s philosophy is more correctly associated with libertarianism

I will grant that libertarians often are attracted to Ayn Rand’s philosophy, but that group does not define the limits her appeal. Rand’s philosophy is just the evolution of the older philosophy of Social Darwinism, which is, in turn an evolution of an older philosophy of, well … Rand’s philosophy is really nothing new at all – it is just another way in which a men or women serve mammon instead of God. Greed is the basis of Positive Objectivism, and Ayn Rand developed a philosophy that tried to turn the vice of greed into a virtue. Positive Objectivism appeals to the greedy and the immoral, and it doesn’t matter whether people are excusing their greed by claiming to be libertarians, neoconservatives, or liberals.

The desire to be rich is an ungodly desire, and the love of money is the root of all evil.

There is great gain in godliness with contentment; for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world; but if we have food and clothing, with these we shall be content. But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and hurtful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all evils; it is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced their hearts with many pangs.
1Tim 6:6-10
 
Sherlock

… the idea that Reaganomics is equatable with it is laughable. Reagan was a conservative, not an Objectivist.

Let us say that Reagan was not an Objectivist. Fine. The fact of the matter is that Reagan implemented the economic agenda of the Objectivists during his administration. If you want to argue that he was the unwitting tool of men with a hidden agenda, I will not argue that point.

I am not really trying to argue about Reagan the man, I am simply pointing out that it is a fact of history that the economic theorists of what is called “Reaganomics” were disciples of Ayn Rand.
 
Sanosuke
  • It seems as though you are arguing that supply-side economics is inherently Objectivist.*
That is indeed what I am arguing. The idea that in a time record deficits, that massive tax cuts should be given to the rich to “stimulate” the economy is not based on any real economic theory. That is an idea that is the end result of the blind beliefs of hardened ideologues that are the willing slaves of mammon.

A real conservative would understand that massive tax cuts and record deficit spending by the government amounts to a fiscal irresponsibility that is sinful in nature. Supply Side economics is pushing our country into bankruptcy, and the price in human misery of this fiscal irresponsibility is being laid disproportionately on the backs of the poor and the working class.

The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer because of supply side “economics”. This is a sin that cries out to God for vengeance. Israel was led into the Babylonian captivity when their society was corrupted by economic injustice against the poor. It is not just ironic that our nation is being led into a captivity in Babylon by men who push an ungodly agenda and call their hidden agenda just.
 
Matt16_18,

I don’t really think that what I say, or what anyone else on this forum says, will mean much to you. Your mind has distorted Church teaching to exclude different means to the same ends (justice for the poor; economic opportunity for all; greater self-sufficiency for the family). You have your ideas as to how that is to be best accomplished, which excludes supply-side economics. I don’t agree, and the Church would not rule with you either: there is room, in Catholic theology, for good Catholics to disagree on the means to common goals. You don’t seem willing to accept this.

You wrote: “Let us say that Reagan was not an Objectivist. Fine.”

This hardly encompasses my argument with you. I never said that you claimed he was an Objectivist. My point was that in spite of your claims, his policies were not Objectivist policies—good heavens, I don’t see the extreme laissez-faire economics of Objectivism being implemented in his policies whatsoever. Indeed, I’m sure that many Objectivists despised him as a weak individual, as he had faith in God that, in Objectivist philosophy, equals weakness. I’m not sure you understand the whole of Objectivist “philosophy”.

Regarding “massive tax cuts for the rich”— If what you call the rich (which I suspect is anyone who earns more than you) pay a disproportionate share of the tax burden, and this discrepancy is somewhat ameliorated, how does that equate with an “unfair” tax cut? Personally, I am in favor of a flat-tax system, though I doubt that will be implemented. But again, this is a difference in means, not in goals. I have a hard time understanding why it is that massive tax burdens on the rich is a good thing. What I read in “Rerum Novarum”, to the contrary, would argue against such an approach.

There is room for good Catholics to disagree on the means to achieve certain agreed-upon ends. I understand that, and so I can accomodate liberal Catholics even though I don’t agree with their means. You don’t seem to be able to understand this, and so I’m afraid you are narrowing Catholicism to your particular version.

You remind me a bit of the fundamentalist Baptists I’ve come across: it’s either my way, or you’re in Hell. I think I’ll stick to the teaching of the Church for my guide, thank you very much…

God bless. I will pray for you and hope that charity will become a part of your life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top