Come and offend my Prophet - What's wrong with Ayn Rand?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT
 

A lot of people on these forums seem to hate her or think she is completely retarded. I've watched some interviews with her, I've read some articles/excerpts from her books and now I'm reading the Fountainhead. Her ideas seem to make quite a lot of sense to me. As far as I understand her...
-She promotes the use of consent instead of force
-She sees dangers in sacrificing yourself for others. Born in Russia, living through the Russian Revolution, World War I and World War II, I don't think that's a very stupid idea of hers.

"Thousands of years ago, the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers to light. He was considered an evildoer who had dealt with a demon mankind dreaded. But thereafter men had fire to keep them warm, to cook their food, to light their caves. He had left them a gift they had not conceived and he had lifted darkness off the earth. Centuries later, the first man invented the wheel. He was probably torn on the rack he had taught his brothers to build. He was considered a transgressor who ventured into forbidden territory. But thereafter, men could travel past any horizon. He had left them a gift they had not conceived and he had opened the roads of the world.

That man, the unsubmissive and first, stands in the opening chapter of every legend mankind has recorded about its beginning. Prometheus was chained to a rock and torn by vultures--because he had stolen the fire of the gods. Adam was condemned to suffer--because he had eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Whatever the legend, somewhere in the shadows of its memory mankind knew that its glory began with one and that that one paid for his courage.

Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision. Their goals differed, but they all had this in common: that the step was first, the road new, the vision unborrowed, and the response they received--hatred. The great creators--the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors--stood alone against the men of their time. Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The first airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won."

Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.

So, explain to me, what is your problem with her? Why do you think she is stupid and evil?

She isn't horrible on every level, but she did say that almost no one is worthy of receiving love. That doesn't invalidate her every argument, but it's a good example of why I feel her arguments have a rhetorical strength that doesn't quite measure up to their factual strength. Part of a successful society is providing every citizen with human dignity, rights, and life. Helping those who can't (and yes, who won't) help themselves should be part of what makes a society successful, from my point of view.

Crazedc00k:
She isn't horrible on every level, but she did say that almost no one is worthy of receiving love. That doesn't invalidate her every argument, but it's a good example of why I feel her arguments have a rhetorical strength that doesn't quite measure up to their factual strength. Part of a successful society is providing every citizen with human dignity, rights, and life. Helping those who can't (and yes, who won't) help themselves should be part of what makes a society successful, from my point of view.

Well, I also heard her say that in the video and I don't know exactly what she means. Maybe she only means that only a select few are worthy of her love and that's good to know for her husband.

Also, Hayek;

Hayek also wrote that the state has a role to play in the economy, and specifically, in creating a "safety net". He wrote, "There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision."

I'm not sure if Rand would disagree, and, I'm not a religious fundamentalist ;)

She committed suicide with her children in the other room? Or was that Sylvia Plath?

OT: From reading Atlas Shrugged I got the feeling that she thinks a person ought to have an outlook on life and personal motivation that many people just do not or cannot have. In addition to this, she assumes that the people at the top of these great enterprises will be moral and not exploit their power (as they do in her book, and as I would say is inevitable in a real system). As such, I would peg her philosophy as too idealist to instantiate.

That said, the bit about sacrificing oneself for others? Seems legit to me.

And as far as the setting man free from men goes, some restriction is necessary because such freedom can be horribly abused. The examples given are benign, but how do you apply this tenet to human experimentation or the inevitability of externalities? Does a paradox arise?

Her views are like all libertarians, unrealistic. She was writing about what libertarians in the US have been writing about for 200 years, that the government is trying to take control of everything and that the best way of doing things is by having no rules or regulations.

The ideals of libertarians are just as extreme as Communism, it is just the other end of the spectrum. They ignore the basic foundations of human nature. People are assholes, it is that simple. Most people could not care less if some stranger is poor and living on the street if it means they have a nice life. Actually, it is not so much that people do not care, they just ignore bad consequences of their actions. Without government to regulate business there would be nothing to stop behaviour that is detrimental to others.

My favourite quote in regards to Ayn Rand

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

randomsix:
She committed suicide with her children in the other room? Or was that Sylvia Plath?

OT: From reading Atlas Shrugged I got the feeling that she thinks a person ought to have an outlook on life and personal motivation that many people just do not or cannot have. In addition to this, she assumes that the people at the top of these great enterprises will be moral and not exploit their power (as they do in her book, and as I would say is inevitable in a real system). As such, I would peg her philosophy as too idealist to instantiate.

That said, the bit about sacrificing oneself for others? Seems legit to me.

And as far as the setting man free from men goes, some restriction is necessary because such freedom can be horribly abused. The examples given are benign, but how do you apply this tenet to human experimentation or the inevitability of externalities? Does a paradox arise?

Rand died of heart failure on March 6, 1982, at her home in New York City,[82] and was interred in the Kensico Cemetery, Valhalla, New York.[83] Rand's funeral was attended by some of her prominent followers, including Alan Greenspan.

Doesn't sound like a dramatic suicide.

Of course, to protect men from each other's force, restrictions are necessary. But I do think 'we' should move more to an objectivist government. Not 100% fundamentalist implement Rand-law now!, but I think her ideas are still valuable in 2011.

pyrate:
Without government to regulate business there would be nothing to stop behaviour that is detrimental to others.

I don't think Ayn Rand promoted 'everyone can use force on each other and the government cannot stop it'.

Danyal:

pyrate:
Without government to regulate business there would be nothing to stop behaviour that is detrimental to others.

I don't think Ayn Rand promoted 'everyone can use force on each other and the government cannot stop it'.

And what exactly do you think this would mean for business, you know, the people who have the most money. They could not possibly become privatized armies that extort whatever they want from those without resources to hire an army of goons. I mean sure, we have those sort of criminal organizations now, even when it is against the law and government is actively combating it, but hey, once anyone can do whatever they want then those people are sure to lay down their weapons and come out for a hug.

pyrate:

Danyal:

pyrate:
Without government to regulate business there would be nothing to stop behaviour that is detrimental to others.

I don't think Ayn Rand promoted 'everyone can use force on each other and the government cannot stop it'.

And what exactly do you think this would mean for business, you know, the people who have the most money. They could not possibly become privatized armies that extort whatever they want from those without resources to hire an army of goons. I mean sure, we have those sort of criminal organizations now, even when it is against the law and government is actively combating it, but hey, once anyone can do whatever they want then those people are sure to lay down their weapons and come out for a hug.

What? Do you think Ayn Rand wants to destroy the entire government or something?!

Danyal:

pyrate:

Danyal:

I don't think Ayn Rand promoted 'everyone can use force on each other and the government cannot stop it'.

And what exactly do you think this would mean for business, you know, the people who have the most money. They could not possibly become privatized armies that extort whatever they want from those without resources to hire an army of goons. I mean sure, we have those sort of criminal organizations now, even when it is against the law and government is actively combating it, but hey, once anyone can do whatever they want then those people are sure to lay down their weapons and come out for a hug.

What? Do you think Ayn Rand wants to destroy the entire government or something?!

This is the exact thought process that is the problem with libertarians. She promotes the idea that individuals can use force against others, but when someone points out that it means large organizations would use force to control the masses all of a sudden the government somehow stops it. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot remove the government from nearly every aspect of the country and then have them magically appear to fix any problems, such as anarchy.

pyrate:

This is the exact thought process that is the problem with libertarians. She promotes the idea that individuals can use force against others, but when someone points out that it means large organizations would use force to control the masses all of a sudden the government somehow stops it. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot remove the government from nearly every aspect of the country and then have them magically appear to fix any problems, such as anarchy.

In our society, big organizations work together with the government to dominate 'the masses'. Remember the huge bailouts? Why do you think our governments is more efficient at preventing a organization from 'controlling the masses' than a libertarian/objectivist government?

//Think of the Austrian government that fines you if you insult Muhammad, the prophet of the Islamic organization that controls a lot of 'masses'.

There are two problems with Rand as I see it.

1): The social contract is not free of charge.

Any man who achieve greatness does so through extensive use of means provided by the state. He who achieves great wealth is ultimately only able to do so because the state has instituted a trustworthy monetary system. He who created a successful shipping business is only able to do so because the state created and maintain the necessary infrastructure.

As per the libertarian ideal, the state[1] may of course charge him whatever it likes for using these institutions, same as any other business might have done (with the general assembly here being made up by the voters).

Hence taxation in a welfare state is not sacrificing yourself for others, so much as paying up for participating in the social contract - and the access to civilization it provides - as the general assembly have chosen to structure it. Only a man who have never ever made use of anything provided by the state am truly free of obligation to pay it back a reasonable rate of return.

Her ideal is hence not sound in the economic sense. Though when it comes to social values, libertarianism is the only ethically acceptable stance to judge others by: When it does no discernible physical harm, they can do as they will.

In summary: "When standing on the shoulders of giants, one cannot trample too hard"

2): Individualism is hardly dogmatic.

As Rand celebrates the unique genius who breaks free of the pathetic social constraints imposed upon it by lesser men, it is self-contradictory to dictate anything to such marvellous individual; If it truly finds self-fulfilment and joy in helping others, and happens to hold views in line with society at large, then it should obviously follow those.

Once one subscribes - conform - to any ideal, including hers, one have already proven that one is not the completely individualistic creative genius it celebrates. It's an ideal that can have no winners but the one who formulated it.

***

Where Rands strength lies is in pointing out that one should not be constrained by the social norms of civic society in one's words or deeds (...unless you want to. In any case, maintaining a fašade of adherence is probably wise), but only the actual obligations one have taken on through the social contract (manifested by the laws of society).

[1] Which is here acting not merely as "a state" to protect negative rights - which it must do free of charge - but as "a business" which provides the positive benefits of a monetary system and an infrastructure. Neither of which anyone had or was entitled to have from birth, and which they can hence be charged for using. Nothing is free.

As I said before in the thread that spawned this, if you haven't already then you should play Bioshock. That game shows perfectly what goes wrong with objectivism, much better than any words can put it.

randomsix:
She committed suicide with her children in the other room? Or was that Sylvia Plath?

Sylvia Plath was head in the oven, I don't think she had children around at the time.

Esotera:
As I said before in the thread that spawned this, if you haven't already then you should play Bioshock. That game shows perfectly what goes wrong with objectivism, much better than any words can put it.

randomsix:
She committed suicide with her children in the other room? Or was that Sylvia Plath?

Sylvia Plath was head in the oven, I don't think she had children around at the time.

I've played Bioshock. Read Animal Farm to see what's wrong with socialism/communism.

Danyal:

Esotera:
As I said before in the thread that spawned this, if you haven't already then you should play Bioshock. That game shows perfectly what goes wrong with objectivism, much better than any words can put it.

I've played Bioshock. Read Animal Farm to see what's wrong with socialism/communism.

Yes, because the only options are objectivism and Stalinist communism. Furthermore, to claim that Animal Farm is a critique of socialism, or even anything beyond the most corrupt forms of communism (i.e. where communism when horribly, horribly wrong) shows a lack of understanding in the historical context.

Danyal:

Esotera:
As I said before in the thread that spawned this, if you haven't already then you should play Bioshock. That game shows perfectly what goes wrong with objectivism, much better than any words can put it.

randomsix:
She committed suicide with her children in the other room? Or was that Sylvia Plath?

Sylvia Plath was head in the oven, I don't think she had children around at the time.

I've played Bioshock. Read Animal Farm to see what's wrong with socialism/communism.

But...but...what about a mixed economy? D:
Seriously, everything isn't black and white.

Danyal:

I've played Bioshock. Read Animal Farm to see what's wrong with socialism/communism.

Well can't you see what's wrong with her philosophy if it were ever practically applied? I'm not the one asking, it was just a suggestion.

She ignores human nature (altruism) and twisted her philosophy so that she could screw her best friend's husband. Not to mention the fact that several corporations take inspiration from objectivism (like we needed anymore of that).

Stagnant:

Yes, because the only options are objectivism and Stalinist communism. Furthermore, to claim that Animal Farm is a critique of socialism, or even anything beyond the most corrupt forms of communism (i.e. where communism when horribly, horribly wrong) shows a lack of understanding in the historical context.

RedEyesBlackGamer:

But...but...what about a mixed economy? D:
Seriously, everything isn't black and white.

Esotera:

Danyal:

I've played Bioshock. Read Animal Farm to see what's wrong with socialism/communism.

Well can't you see what's wrong with her philosophy if it were ever practically applied? I'm not the one asking, it was just a suggestion.

She ignores human nature (altruism) and twisted her philosophy so that she could screw her best friend's husband. Not to mention the fact that several corporations take inspiration from objectivism (like we needed anymore of that).

---
People here above me
The Animal Farm argument was semi-sarcasm. Do you seriously think 'Play Bioshock' is a good argument?!

I've read Atlas Shrugged. Really liked it at the time. Probably wouldn't as much anymore. I seem to remember that she says three parts of government are justified. Courts, police and military (the latter two only for protection.) However, I don't see why there's any difference between those things, and any other non-rivalrous, non-excludable good. I don't like the idea that the government can take my money and use it on parks that I might not want, but it bugs me just as much (or more) that it can be spent on police to enforce laws that I don't necessarily agree with.

Although - I love Bioshock, but it isn't a perfect argument for why Rand is wrong. It illustrates a few of the problems that would happen in an Objectivist society, but mostly Rapture falls because of two things - the existence of plasmids, which there is hardly anything like in reality, and the fact that in the end, Andrew Ryan basically abandoned his own philosophy, doing things like seizing the property of Fontaine Futuristics and pumping in mind-control chemicals.

kingpocky:
Although - I love Bioshock, but it isn't a perfect argument for why Rand is wrong. It illustrates a few of the problems that would happen in an Objectivist society, but mostly Rapture falls because of two things - the existence of plasmids, which there is hardly anything like in reality

It's a pretty obvious analogy to drugs and eugenics, I would have thought. No market regulation on a commodity that creates addiction in the consumer? A product that's only affordable by those in a certain income bracket and improves them further?

and the fact that in the end, Andrew Ryan basically abandoned his own philosophy, doing things like seizing the property of Fontaine Futuristics and pumping in mind-control chemicals.

Like John Galt taking action against striking collectivists by, er, going on strike and forming a collective, perhaps?

Oirish_Martin:

kingpocky:
Although - I love Bioshock, but it isn't a perfect argument for why Rand is wrong. It illustrates a few of the problems that would happen in an Objectivist society, but mostly Rapture falls because of two things - the existence of plasmids, which there is hardly anything like in reality

It's a pretty obvious analogy to drugs and eugenics, I would have thought. No market regulation on a commodity that creates addiction in the consumer? A product that's only affordable by those in a certain income bracket and improves them further?

and the fact that in the end, Andrew Ryan basically abandoned his own philosophy, doing things like seizing the property of Fontaine Futuristics and pumping in mind-control chemicals.

Like John Galt taking action against striking collectivists by, er, going on strike and forming a collective, perhaps?

I haven't read Atlas Shrugged yet but as far as I know Rand doesn't want humans to live as lone predators. She doesn't say you can't work together. She says you should only work together if everyone consents and you can't use force to rob people of their energy or products.
The collectivists Galt strikes against want to force Galt to do stuff instead of letting him live in freedom; the people Galt forms a collective with do so consenting out of free will.

Oirish_Martin:

kingpocky:
Although - I love Bioshock, but it isn't a perfect argument for why Rand is wrong. It illustrates a few of the problems that would happen in an Objectivist society, but mostly Rapture falls because of two things - the existence of plasmids, which there is hardly anything like in reality

It's a pretty obvious analogy to drugs and eugenics, I would have thought. No market regulation on a commodity that creates addiction in the consumer? A product that's only affordable by those in a certain income bracket and improves them further?

and the fact that in the end, Andrew Ryan basically abandoned his own philosophy, doing things like seizing the property of Fontaine Futuristics and pumping in mind-control chemicals.

Like John Galt taking action against striking collectivists by, er, going on strike and forming a collective, perhaps?

Right, as I said it does focus on a few of the problems. Lack of drug regulation is an issue, but not an unsolvable one, and probably less important than some other problems with Objectivism.

John Galt's "collective" is pretty much the same thing Andrew Ryan did in founding Rapture. Just created a place where no one would be forced to do anything beyond respecting the life and property rights of another. Would such an experiment work in real life? I'm highly skeptical. Andrew Ryan eventually went from being an unofficial leader with no real political power beyond what any other business owner had, to being one of the tyrants he left the surface to get away from. You'd have to bend over backwards so far that you're sticking your head up your ass to justify those things in Objectivism. I really don't see what you're saying at all here.

I don't agree with her whole "Individualism is the greatest thing in the world" and "Idealists always change society" ideals, but the fact that she came from Communist Russia explains why she has those Ideas. While I do agree with her on her Economic Principles (IE: Free-Market), It can't be a completely Free Market Economy because, as the old saying goes, "Give them an Inch, and they'll take a mile." It's not just businesses who do this: Unions, government, Individuals, everyone does that, and they should all be regulated to keep any one group from domination.

I do like the book "Anthem" though...

I think it would be rather common knowledge what is wrong with Rand, or better said, with libertarism. It creates a society beyond a class society, more like a caste system. Because nobody can be held to care for anybody, your family is all you will ever be able to rely on in a Randian society.

As a result, the wealth of your parents determines your own possible wealth and happiness.

I also don't like how she hijacks scientific advantage for her own ideas. She ties any opposition to extreme libertarism together with groups like the luddites, or other obscurantists, and that's just nonsense. Actually, scientific advance is impossible these days without working together. If all scientists jealously guarded their own knowledge and screamed 'omg, you can't force me to share this! I'm free!', then no new inventions would be done, innovation would be impossible.

For one thing, people should have a look at Porter's Diamond that deals with companies working together. My lecturers said that the most important condition for a cluster of companies is them investing in things they don't directly profit from, or even don't profit from at all. Not even to mention the working together in a pretty selfless way that the Utrechtian evolutionary approach to economical geography has.
All of that is companies reinforcing themselves, creating wealth, in it's wake wellfare and advantages, because they don't stubbornly only look out for themselves as libertarists like Rand insisted.


I'm inclined to dismiss the ideas of that group completely as being shortsighed and unfounded merely based on what I know of that.

Because her ideas are totally detached from practical reality. Just like the hardcore economic theory her followers tend to adopt. It works from principals down rather than evidence up, which is why it fails.

Danny Ocean:
Because her ideas are totally detached from practical reality. Just like the hardcore economic theory her followers tend to adopt. It works from principals down rather than evidence up, which is why it fails.

I'm drunk as fuck right now, and even I can tell that Objectivism is at best a poor strawman of socialism. Hot damn.

And even the title of the topic bothers me: "my Prophet" - the way in which people idolize the woman bothers me. Her understanding of economics is unorthodox not because she knows better than other people, but because she simply has a poor understanding of economics.

pyrate:
Her views are like all libertarians, unrealistic. She was writing about what libertarians in the US have been writing about for 200 years, that the government is trying to take control of everything and that the best way of doing things is by having no rules or regulations.

The ideals of libertarians are just as extreme as Communism, it is just the other end of the spectrum. They ignore the basic foundations of human nature. People are assholes, it is that simple. Most people could not care less if some stranger is poor and living on the street if it means they have a nice life.

*Sigh*

When will people understand this? You are a jealous, selfish, entitled piece of shit because you have been raised to be one. From day one, you have been bombarded with advertisements and messages to condition you into this personality. If this propaganda was used to achieve the opposite, it would be just as effective.

See, you go into the ex-USSR and ask some of the old people what their world view is, and they will tell you they would give anything for their country. Why? Because they have been raised that way, just as we are raised to buy. People are not naturally selfish, at least, most are not. The most important part of forming that is how you are raised.

Lets make sure that we understand what Ayn Rand is supposing.

Objectivism is controversial because it demands a few things:

Existence is the foundation of all knowledge: This would imply that religious figures such as God do not exist, or are otherwise unimportant. If existence is the most important figure, then nothing greater may be derived from anything. People have argued many times on this, and I find myself agreeing with Rand on this point.

Morality of Selfishness: This is that man should live for his existence primarily. This continues to build on existence being the foundation of all knowledge, which would transcend oneself above everyone, and every idea, including religion and God. Ayn Rand argues (to which I agree to some degree) that without value in ones existence, value in, for example, his sister, would not be possible as without his existence, the sisters' existence would objectively not be possible.

I'm going to stop there, but that is a brief way of putting a couple of her views. There is a lot more to it than anyone here could post, so I will direct you to the book entitled: The Virtue of Selfishness.

Several people here clearly haven't read much of Ayn Rand.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
When will people understand this? [b]You are a jealous, selfish, entitled piece of shit because you have been raised to be one. From day one, you have been bombarded with advertisements and messages to condition you into this personality. If this propaganda was used to achieve the opposite, it would be just as effective.

Then why has every attempt at that ever in history, failed miserably? I also don't see any evidence to back up your, rather unlikely, claim.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
See, you go into the ex-USSR and ask some of the old people what their world view is, and they will tell you they would give anything for their country. Why?

Because if you said anything different, being killed by the secret police was the least of your worries.

I strongly doubt you know much about daily life in the USSR, or you wouldn't say such a thing. In reality, people looked out for themselves. You traded goods to get richer, you stole from work, you worked as little as possible because there was no point to it, and you tried to look good within the part because that yielded material rewards such as vacations, holiday homes, a car, and so on.

Communism and the states that tried it are living proof that your reasoning is flawed.

Blablahb:

I strongly doubt you know much about daily life in the USSR, or you wouldn't say such a thing.

I suppose you know much about daily life in the USSR then?

Blablahb:

Communism and the states that tried it are living proof that your reasoning is flawed.

I don't know. We will never know how communism would run without being locked into a battle with the other side. It could be argued (note, I said could be - I am not arguing that myself) that maybe USSR failed simply because it was forced to dedicate so much resources to the military and war, and had it been free to use resources differently, it might have succeeded. After all, a true communist society would need no military. And to that I can only say, we will never know.

I find nearly all of her arguments persuasive, many of them correspond quite well with the way I view the world.

The primary problem I have with her is on the subject of altruism. Allowing one's sense of compassion to override good sense is indeed a problem that the majority of the population suffers from time to time. That is not however a reason to set it aside entirely, especially considering the role it plays in social relationships. As with many other things, balance is the key, and Rand just happens to play the role of extremist on this particular issue.

RedEyesBlackGamer:

Danyal:

Esotera:
As I said before in the thread that spawned this, if you haven't already then you should play Bioshock. That game shows perfectly what goes wrong with objectivism, much better than any words can put it.

Sylvia Plath was head in the oven, I don't think she had children around at the time.

I've played Bioshock. Read Animal Farm to see what's wrong with socialism/communism.

But...but...what about a mixed economy? D:

Atlas Shrugged's evil government was running a mixed economy that was regulating and control the economy to the benifit of themselves and a handful of others.

Danny Ocean:
Because her ideas are totally detached from practical reality. Just like the hardcore economic theory her followers tend to adopt. It works from principals down rather than evidence up, which is why it fails.

cant we just end the thread here...

Movie bob had a pretty good synopsis in his review of Atlas Shrugged.

It sounds good on paper, but when real people are set loose on this ideology things are bound to get screwed up.

Not G. Ivingname:

RedEyesBlackGamer:

Danyal:

I've played Bioshock. Read Animal Farm to see what's wrong with socialism/communism.

But...but...what about a mixed economy? D:

Atlas Shrugged's evil government was running a mixed economy that was regulating and control the economy to the benifit of themselves and a handful of others.

That says nothing about whether it is economically viable, which it is. It is a lot better than Laissez-faire capitalism.

Blablahb:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
When will people understand this? [b]You are a jealous, selfish, entitled piece of shit because you have been raised to be one. From day one, you have been bombarded with advertisements and messages to condition you into this personality. If this propaganda was used to achieve the opposite, it would be just as effective.

Then why has every attempt at that ever in history, failed miserably? I also don't see any evidence to back up your, rather unlikely, claim.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
See, you go into the ex-USSR and ask some of the old people what their world view is, and they will tell you they would give anything for their country. Why?

Because if you said anything different, being killed by the secret police was the least of your worries.

I strongly doubt you know much about daily life in the USSR, or you wouldn't say such a thing. In reality, people looked out for themselves. You traded goods to get richer, you stole from work, you worked as little as possible because there was no point to it, and you tried to look good within the part because that yielded material rewards such as vacations, holiday homes, a car, and so on.

Communism and the states that tried it are living proof that your reasoning is flawed.

Im not so sure dude. Whats your source? Mine is several documentaries and the likes about the USSR, and talking to several people who actually lived and/or grew up there. These people agreed with me and told me my presumptions were right.

Im going to assume you just have this viewpoint because almost everyone on the escapist keeps saying this, but you can tell me otherwise when your suspension is over.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked