In many ways I think this article is exploiting a false dichotomy that has always bothered me: Libertarianism vs. Communalism. I've believed for a long that both Rand and Marx were very important thinkers who both fundamentally believed in the freedom of the individual: Freedom from control by 'Capital' and freedom from control by the 'Government'.
I get worried as I see the ever tighter cooperation between capital and government in our society. We risk approaching a world that both Marx and Rand would have been united in opposition of.
At the same time, I have hope. By freely choosing to cooperate, choosing to do what we love, by choosing to give whatever we can back to the world, by choosing to support free software and free platforms, we have shown that we have the opportunity to outpace the ability of capital and government to react to this revolution.
We'll see where things go. I'm sure it'll be interesting.
I understand what you're saying and I agree with it, but it hurts to see Ayn Rand mentioned along with actual philosophers and economists (even Marx, who's largely out of favor in the political and academic realms these days).
There's this sense of necessary equality of the ends of a spectrum (sort of like the two-sides-to-every-story fallacy), and Rand gets to sit on one end of that spectrum as its de facto representative, garnering some kind of scholarly-econo-philosophical legitimacy in the process. It rankles.
I wouldn't call either Rand or Max a philosopher. I would be more inclined to call Rand a poet and Marx an economist. (I must admit I am much less familiar with Marx's writings).
I place them in opposition to each other mostly because of their rather unique ability to instantly draw the ire of one large segment of the population while rallying another.
marx is definitely a philosopher in the hegelian tradition -- dialectical materialism is his great contribution. i wouldn't say it's inaccurate to describe him as an economist, though
Nicely said. I always take note when I see libertarians and left-liberals in agreement (e.g. on the war machine, or surveillance/privacy) and wonder if there might be some more substantial basis for a coalition there.
If I may make an even stronger statement, to hopefully spark an interesting conversation:
I have hope. Spontaneous cooperation between equal peers which unintentionally upsets the status quo and becomes the inflection point for political change for the good has been a longstanding tradition.
The requirements are:
1. Equal peers who abide basic human rights such that cooperation is possible.
2. Pent-up desire for political change for the good which needs a catalyst/release valve.
3. Critical mass of willing participants who, if they discover new status quo, can immediately grasp its significance. (a.k.a. The Innovator's Dilemma)
4. Method of communication which enables #3 to cause the political change.
I don't personally have much faith in political change as a starting point. Political change may happen. I suspect it will be the results of a paradigm shift, not the cause of one.
I do agree that innovations in communication, especially in the area of collective decision making, are key.
Ok, I apologize if it sounded like political change was the starting point. (Good! I obviously need to clarify!)
Political change is definitely the result -- but media outlets frequently claim it is all four: cause, method, effect, and definition. (Of the paradigm shift.)
I get worried as I see the ever tighter cooperation between capital and government in our society. We risk approaching a world that both Marx and Rand would have been united in opposition of.
At the same time, I have hope. By freely choosing to cooperate, choosing to do what we love, by choosing to give whatever we can back to the world, by choosing to support free software and free platforms, we have shown that we have the opportunity to outpace the ability of capital and government to react to this revolution.
We'll see where things go. I'm sure it'll be interesting.