Rand is NOT a Fascist! Jeez!
ab975 at main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca
Sun Jun 25 18:26:48 MDT 1995
On Sat, 24 Jun 1995, Chris M. Sciabarra wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jun 1995, Jim Jaszewski wrote:
> > This may be where we differ on 'semantics':
> > Simply being an enemy of the Nazis is no proof that one is not
> > himself a fascist, or will not later slide into it.
> I agree... but since fascism is intimately related to
> nationalism, corporativism, racism, and authoritarianism, and since Rand
> did not defend ANY of these positions, I would say that she does not
> qualify as a fascist.
I am sorry, but that is not how she comes across. She have may
explicitly denied all such beliefs, but since when do you take an enemy's
word on something??
> Jim continues:
> > The post WWII world is FULL of people who fought the Nazis, but
> > who I would characterize as being just as fascistic as them.
> Like who, the Soviets perhaps?
Sure -- why not?? What makes you think I support most of those
shits?? You think everyone here who sticks to their marxist guns is some
cardboard-cutout cartoon commie??
Look at how with such indecent haste most of the nomenclatura
turned into instant '_libertarian_' capitalists...
> Jim continues:
> > She may have 'opposed' the _explicitly_ fascist opponents of the
> > Western governments (I wouldn't know, but after all, she was obviously
> > smart enuff to know which side her bread was buttered on), but that
> > doesn't mean her 'critique' of U.S. neofascism wasn't an INTERNAL one.
> Being dialectical myself,
I would say that there isn't a critique
> on earth that is not immanent, that is, internal to its historical and
> cultural context.. INCLUDING Marx's.
I think you're dissembling here...
There is no such thing as a
> synoptic vantage point on history.
I think you're avoiding the question...
> Jim continues his commentary:
> > She saw big
> > > business as the architects of American statism, opposed U. S. entry into
> > > Korea and Vietnam,
> > On moral grounds, I'm sure...
> Yes, partially on moral grounds,
That was sarcasm, fella... |>
but also because she had a
> developed critique of the structural needs of statism, which required
> militarization and imperialism.
So she couldn't get away from the objective reality which Marx
was describing -- big deal.
> Jim continues:
> > I call her a fascist because of the company she kept, and because
> > of her bizarre philosophy (what I know of 'Objectivism'), which leads
> > naturaly(?) to this worship of a 'dynamic leader' type who 'keeps the
> > trains running on time' (Gee... where have we seen THIS before..!!)
> If we define people by the company they keep, I guess this makes
> me a Marxist.
Ya, I'd watch it if I were YOU fella... Big Bro' an' all...!!
As for worship of a dynamic leader... Rand DID worship
> competence and productive labor; in this regard, she parallels Marx's own
> celebration of the synthesizing effects of labor on human development.
Come now. In 'Atlas Shrugged' she *VERY* clearly showed her belief
that, without a few geniuses to keep it running, the whole world would
This is INCREDIBLY arrogant and elitist!! It is what *I* would
call a fascistic sensibility (if not out-and-out etc., etc.)
> Jim asks:
> > Wasn't she a Balt?
> She was born in St. Petersburg in 1905, and was a Russian Jew,
> emigrating in 1926.
Ahhh... the Zionist connection..
I'll bet she's the philosopher emeritus of the ADL... |>
(Kinda describes the personality of those I've seen buying or studying
> On my Rand book, Jim remarks:
> > A Sisyphean effort I'm sure...
> Well, if Jim's response is any indication... :)
You GOT it, pardner..!
Jim Jaszewski <jazz at freenet.hamilton.on.ca>
WWW homepage: <http://www.freenet.hamilton.on.ca/~ab975/Profile.html>
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism