this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2024
1224 points (96.4% liked)

Comic Strips

12568 readers
3885 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 19 points 8 months ago (4 children)

I think people do not understand where Ayn Rand was coming from. She came from the Soviet Union, a highly collectivist society. Everyone is expected to conform and be all the same economically. Then she got sick of it, emigrated and formed her own Iam14butthisisdeep philosophy. Unfortunately, some rich American asshats saw that her ideas have self-serving utility to justify their ultra-capitalist beliefs and privileges and continue exploitation, and then spread her nonsensical "objectivist" ideas around. Not many people actually believe the philosophy, although we unconsciously apply this especially with middle class NIMBYISM.

"Oh, poor homeless people. I hope they could be housed. But I will elect a politician who will not build social housing because it will bring down the value of my property."

"I support mitigating climate change. But I do not want windfarms nearby. They are eye sores."

[–] xantoxis@lemmy.world 19 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I mean, lots of people with terrible and damaging ideas came from backgrounds that explain their terrible and damaging ideas. She doesn't get a pass because the USSR was corrupt, nor does she get a pass because western capitalist society is also corrupt.

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 13 points 8 months ago (1 children)

She came to the West and made it more corrupt with her half-baked ideas by amplifying the excessive use of individualist values.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

She came from the Soviet Union, a highly collectivist society.

The USSR wasn't a collectivist society - it was a centalized one. There's a vast difference. Nobody calls the US military "collectivist," do they now?

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Centralised but everyone is expected to value the group over the individual. The property in the Soviet Union belongs to the people albeit managed by the state. Therefore, collectivist.

Centralisation does not mean either just means individualism or collectivism.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Centralised but

So you are now claiming that centralization isn't inherently collectivist?

The property in the Soviet Union belongs to the people albeit managed by the state.

So you are now claiming nothing in the Soviet Union was nationalized?

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You can be centralised but not collectivist. See the theory of anarcho-capitalism.

I'm guessing you're operating from different sensibility of political philosophy. Define collectivism then we can talk.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

See the theory of anarcho-capitalism.

I saw it... and just looking at it made it fall apart like an upside-down house of cards in a whirlwind. Strange... this seems to happen every time anyone looks at (so-called) "anarcho-capitalism" a bit too closely. Have you had better luck with it, perhaps?

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Anarcho-capitalism doesn't work, yes. What's your point?

Have you any luck yet trying to answer me how would you define collectivism?

[–] HerbalGamer@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago

she was just mad that her privileges were distributed fairly for once