Welcome to Gaia! ::

Hi there, Symorin. Welcome to the guild, and thanks for posting your thoughts. Just a few comments in reply for now:

Objectivism certainly has the characteristics you charge it with, but... is it actually such a big deal? How does it compare to the rest of the ideology in the Republican party, and even liberal ideology in the Democratic Party? Is it wrong? I don't think you answered these questions, but they are the most important ones.

Objectivism is the bare ideology of a triumphant capitalist. As such, it's a ******** stupid ideology. Better, from the standpoint of maintaining class rule, to try to hide some of it. But where it declares the state to be oppressive, well, it's correct. The state's whole job is to oppress. The stupid thing about Objectivism is that it ignores the fact that the capitalist state oppresses workers, women, and minorities in the interests of the capitalists. At the same time, however, it isn't actually that stupid: The whole point of recognising the oppressiveness of the state, the nature of taxes as theft (and seriously, if you don't pay taxes, you are threatened with fines, gaol time, or other sanctions. How is that not theft and extortion? You may say it is JUSTIFIED theft and extortion, but it will be hard to call it anything else) is not just some idiotic refusal to recognise the basis fo their class rule, but a rather rational. On the one hand, capitalists like a cheap state. Because taxes suck. On the one hand, taxes deprive the capitalist of capital to make them richer. On the other hand, it deprives their workers of money to spend on the goods they make. Since the job of the state is to ensure the rule of the ruling class, its core responsibilities are maintaining the class rule fo the capitalists against both the workers it exploits at home, and the foreign capitalists it competes with, and maintaining the 'rule of law' among the capitalists themselves to make sure capital circulates smoothly. To say that its sole duty is these may be a bit shortsighted, in that most capitalists recognise the need for other things in order to make society run smoothly so that the core responsibilities of the state are easier to manage, but that's a question of technique, not principles.

The other thing is that the rate of profit is constantly declining. (Explanation) So in order to maintain a steady rate of profit, the capitalists have to make or find new markets, cheaper sources of labour, and cheaper resources to undercut their competitors and maintain a high rate of profit. This is where the hatred of the welfare state comes in: The state owns these things that it pays for through taxes. As such, they don't supply profit to anyone. By selling these things off, by getting the private sector to take care of these things, means they become an avenue for investment and profit. The argument by these types that government ownership is inefficient is shown to be nonsense by the experience of the US post office, a government owned company, but one not run by the government, and not funded by the government (essentially a normal company, but one with 100% of the shares owned by the state), that the Republicans legislated a whole bunch of hurdles against, and then Obama's former advisor who now runs it advocates selling it off. Here we see that the issue is not inefficiency, but profitability: They want to sell it precisely because it is profitable, and therefore a viable investment option. The thing is, capitalism is just SO ******** PRODUCTIVE that is produces way more than it can possibly sell. So much, in fact, that profitability is declining hugely. If it sells these things at a 'market price' determined by supply and demand, then it cannot recoup the costs of capital and labour. If it sells these things at production cost then it has a ******** huge stockpile leftover going to wast, in which case what's the point of new productive technology? Well, because other capitalists are selling. The rate of profit is declining, but it isn't zero, so for as long as it is profitable to produce and sell, no matter how weak that profit, they will do so. But the logic of capitalism points to these constant crises. And so the logic of capitalism points, in this age, not to the making of a harmonious welfare state, but its systematic dismantling. This is why all sections of the capitalist class agree about privatisation, the only question they disagree on is what should be privatised now, how fast should it be privatised, and so on. The same thing with regards to regulations: They hurt profits, so they must be dismantled. Profit is declining, so new regulations cannot be made with any regularity of success, nor stability of duration. Capitalism is entering its death spiral.

So here we come to the other question I asked: How does it compare to the ideologies of the 'mainstream' Republican Party, and the liberalism of the Democrats? It differs only in this: That it is more bold, more forthright, and that it draws all the tendencies out to their conclusion and doesn't balk at the creation of a morality to justify it. That is all.

So, when nothing can be done about it in practice, and when its core ideas are present in both parties and in all the candidates for both parties, what can be done about it? What can be done to fight it? I leave that as an exercise for the reader. smile