- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Ayn Rand advocated people getting what they deserved.

Posted by: David ( USA ) on November 07, 1999 at 21:50:33:

In Reply to: I know the bit... posted by Stoller on November 05, 1999 at 16:11:21:

: : Please see the follow up to Lark's post.

: I think you meant SDF's post. There are a few theoretical errors in your understanding of his explanations of C-M-C and M-C-M, which I shall let him respond to. You are a fast study, however, which will reward further discussions.

: : Laws aside.

: No, there is no such thing as 'laws aside.' Laws are markers of expected consequences; there are consequences for every behavior. Each set of property relations produces consequences arising from the respect or lack of respect regarding the property in any epoch.

When I said "laws aside," I was reffering to this statement: "But if the barbarian is in fact the LANDLORD, then ransacking the crops is LEGAL."
I was pointing out that if a government made something legal that is against the rights of its citizens than it does not automatically mean that those rights no longer exist. It may be considered "legal" in the eyes of the courts, but it is not right in the eyes of man.

: : Allow me to clarify. When life is your standard of values, then every action that perpetuates it is considered moral.

: This is Rand's tribute to Nietzsche, of course...

The only difference was that Nietzsche was a proponent of what me might term today "social darwinism." He envisioned a race of ubermenchen (not sure as to the spelling, French is my forte) resulting.
Ayn Rand advocated people getting what they deserved.

: : If the action is adversely related to life and the continuation thereof, then it is immoral.

: This says nothing about the property relations of any epoch. Nor does it address the question of who owns the property or what happens to those who do not.

That is because it is a rather broad statement. You can always apply it to different questions. In this case, I would say that in order to live, a person must have a means of sustaining their life. This could be in the form of working on a farm or working in a factory. The former is a more direct way, while the latter requires a medium of exchange and a society in which to exchange good produced.
I am not sure what you mean by "property relations of an epoch." Maybe I am too idealistic, but I believe that no matter the epoch, if you own the property you own the property.

: I could easilyclaim that the monopoly ownership of the means of production by the capitalist elite was 'adversely related to life and the continuation thereof,' pointing out starvation diets, lack of medical care, army conscription, etc. as they affected those who do not own property (the proletariat).

: But that would only lead us back to my asseveration that each epoch, each property relation, each class has its own perspective on what---and what does not---'adversely relate to life and the continuation thereof.'

I guess it relies on your point of view. I see increased production and global industrailization as perpetuating life. As a result, we are able to sustain 6 billion people with better living conditions than there were when the population only consisted of 40 million.

: But I don't want to make the postmodernist's case.

This may be a little off topic but my school has a Pomohomo club (Post Modernist Homosexuals), I think it is kind of funny the extent that people go to label themselves.
Back to the discussion.

: I just want to make the proletariat's case.

: When it comes to what 'adversely relates to life and the continuation thereof' FOR THE BOURGEOISIE, they've had enough air time. It's time to hear about what 'adversely relates to life and the continuation thereof' for the PROLETARIAT.

: A class that owns (all the) property and another that doesn't own (any) property have GOT to look at property in different ways, eh?

This may be a trivial point, but if a class that owns all the property is defined as the Bourgeoise (loose definition, I know...)than once all the proletariats take back the means of production, won't they become the bourgeoise?

: : Starvation is not a force instituted by the bourgeois, it is a consequence of not producing for yourself (specifically, food).

: That tells us nothing about HOW to food is actually produced.

: Again, a minority owns all the food-producing property and another does not---they have to work the land. Starvation, in this case, has everything to do with how those two class will RELATE. And, as it is now, those who own the property DICTATE their terms to those who do not.

Well, since it is their property, than they should be able to dictate the terms of the usage of the property. If they acquired the property through force than it is not rightfull theirs.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup