"I’d be very wary of confusing the church of Rand (okay, Objectivism) with Libertarianism. They may seem similar at a long distance… "
A perfect example of the narcissism of small differences. One says that being a selfish asshole is the pinnacle of human achievement, the other says that being a selfish asshole is everyone’s absolute right. Whatever their theoretical disagreements may be, in reality you can’t separate them with a crowbar.
Progressives, no. Socialists…well, there’s at least a bit more nuance, especially for Che.
The complaint that making the most hated man in It’s a Wonderful Life a banker reeks of Communism conveniently overlooks how the beloved protagonist is himself a banker, albeit of a savings and loan. Also, Frank Capra, the co-writer and director, and Jimmey Stewart, the film’s star, were both conservative Republicans.
The Bailey Brothers’ Building and Loan seems to be based on mutual credit and economic solidarity (as far as I understand) so, I think you are right.
At least “Socialist” as we understand it in Europe…
I think you just explained Trumpianism, except substitute “Obama” for communism.
Fewer and fewer Che t-shirts since the point in the early '90s when enough progressives and most socialists came to learn that wearing one proclaimed “I’m an ignorant and naive twit.” Progressivism as a movement outgrew Che two decades ago, while Libertarians keep hawking Rand’s media merch.
The point of the agencies and their permanent bureaucracies is to establish a measure of continuity and institutional memory despite political change. The GOP establishment, as much as they have disliked the mission on the EPA, understood that and held off from trying to destroy it. It took an extremist and his Bizarro-World appointments and policies to launch a full-out attack on the EPA.
For me it’s not so much concentrating on the ghosts (which are regularly invoked by people with influence) but mocking them every chance that presents itself.
As for convincing the rubes who buy the various nostrums peddled by Libertarians (including some of Rand’s snake oil), I don’t see much point; as with climate-change denialism, those kinds of suckers never learn that supply-side and such are scams until it’s too late.
Instead, we have to start working around the Know-Nothing 27% who think that global warming is a hoax designed by scientists looking to deny them their chance to lift themselves up by their bootstraps and become Rugged Individualist tycoons.
Ignorance is never strength.
Lumping superficially similar groups together is a favourite tactic of the right because they believe their followers too stupid to understand nuance. It leads to utter failure in their policies. Do we need to embrace the same?
In our hour of desperation, is their any vice of the right that we’re not willing to try?
(Admittedly this is moderately obscure example, but I see an unfortunate trend of simplifying the world because we don’t trust the electorate. It’s been a disaster on the right, and now we’re in danger of embracing on the left. There needs to be sanity somewhere.)
Fully agreed.
My life experience is that mockery convinces nobody (and usually hardens opposition). It merely temporarily peels away the weak who will flow right back when the wind next changes. If we’re looking at permanently changing the nature of our respective societies, mockery is not the weapon to build a future.
Besides, at this point, while my news sources are biased, I hear way more of Ayn Rand from the left than the right. It’s as if the right was obsessed now with Abbie Hoffman.
Mine as well. As I implied above, I’m not looking to convince anyone, especially not here. On BB BBS the mockery becomes a way to laugh the “free” market extremist trollies out of the room, which is no small thing. It allows the grown-ups (including some small-l libertarians) to have a more substantive and productive conversation.
I don’t recall any Dem politicians regularly quoting and stating their admiration for Hoffman (who, to his credit, understood the power of mockery).
Which explains why over the past decades they’ve gradually lumped together Objectivism, right-wing Libertarianism, Reaganism, and even Prosperity Gospel for their own base of followers (i.e. the rubes I mention above). We’re just laughing at the pile of bootstrappy mush those in power on the American right present as their own values in order to rope in the marks.
I’m sure you’ll also agree that these depredations are being justified by the cowards and opportunists of American movement conservatism with the familiar rhetoric of “reducing the size of government” and of “freeing American corporations from limitations imposed by the state.”
It’s highly unlikely that he said it. 1998 is a bit early for the instant identification of Fox with the republican base. It only launched in, what, mid-1996.
He may have said words to the effect since but I doubt that, too. That’s a bit too much introspection for him.
Well, not exactly. First, Vladimir Ilyich was already a Russian, whereas Rand was not an American. But secondly, it’s far from unusual for Russian emigré(e)s to adopt a belief set which rejects religion (backwardness of Russian Orthodox church), socialism (they mostly left because they didn’t get on in the system) and government regulation (ditto). Communists believed that when everybody became truly Communist and thus perfectly altruistic, the State would disappear. So out goes altruism, as dangerous commie nonsense.
Back in the 70s there were Soviet refugees living in North London and espousing this sort of stuff. Attempts to get them to understand that the British government, while venial and corrupt, didn’t maintain concentration camps for dissidents, and that the British Labour Party wouldn’t bring in Stalinism if it ever got a big majority, were futile. Rand just happened to be in the right place at the right time to get a big audience and a degree of celebrity. The chess players in the cafés in Hampstead just got by on handouts from the State of which they disapproved.
I would think that American progressives would prefer the likes of Jeremy Corbyn (who isn’t very left wing, despite what the swivel eyed loon brigade think), or Aneurin (Nye) Bevan.
There is money to be made in recuperating Che’s image, but not a lot of interest in the détournement of Ayn Rand, beyond the occasional parody of her work.
Libertarian socialists don’t like Che because of his authoritarian leanings.
You can. Well, I wouldn’t know whether they were the first to come up with it, and in fact I doubt it.
As neither Hindenburg nor Ludendorff ever had played Risc as a kid1) they discovered the hard way that being in a two front war isn’t exactly fun.
So the OHL2) came up with the plan to cart Vladimir Ilyich in a sealed train from his exile in Switzerland back to Mother Russia, in the hope that he would start The Revolution, which would force Russia to drop out of WWI, which in turn would mean that the troops at the eastern front could be reassigned to the western front and beat the allies.
Well, the first part worked.
1) Yes, I stole this bit from Eddie Izzard.
2) Oberste HeeresLeitung = Supreme Army Command. Not to be confused with DHL.
Bizarro World Obamanism is my band’s name.
Pssst!
You’re commenting here on the BBS; so you’re actually including yourself in that ‘assessment.’
Nah, his type never mean themselves, because they are perfect paragons of human virtue. /s
That comment is so filled to the brim with psychological projection that it’s unintentionally hilarious.
Here’s to hoping 2018 contains far less hilarious.
