Thursday, April 02, 2009

Objectivism & Politics, Part 3

Pareto and the Objectivist. G. Stolyarov, a “science fiction” writer strongly influenced by Rand, wrote a review in 2004 of Pareto’s The Rise and Fall of Elites which allows a convenient glimpse of the contrast between ideological and non-ideological forms of thinking. Stolyarov, like most Objectivist ideologues, is more interested in finding “intellectual ammunition” to support preconceived positions than he is in discovering truths about the real world of fact; and as a consequence, he falls into several misrepresentations and errors of fact and analysis. Pareto, Stolyarov claims, “repeatedly and eloquently demonstrates aversion and loathing” to the “socialist elite.” Stolyarov obviously approves of this alleged “aversion and loathing” and wishes to make Pareto an intellectual ally. But before doing this, he must acknowledge that Pareto’s “groundwork ... is immensely shaky.”

[Pareto’s] basic premise with respect to human nature is that people’s motivations are inherently irrational and based on sentiment rather than logic, and that any reasons that individuals ostensibly present for their actions are in fact post-rationalizations. To this my response to Pareto would be a paraphrase of Rand: “If you do not consider people capable of genuine rational judgment, do not check their premises, check yours.” Certainly, some individuals, perhaps most of those who lack a systematic worldview, do act on whim and impulse, and Pareto may well have been one of them, which might have led him to attribute his own inner state to all others. Indeed, he had not presumed to use rational thought to justify the very premise about people’s sentimental motivations! He merely stated that the matter is out of the scope of the given treatise.

This a typical example of muddled Rand-inspired analysis. First, we find the mania for polarizing arguments. Pareto, complains Stolyarov, believes in the “inherent irrationality” of human motivation. But that isn’t quite true. Human motivation is not, for Pareto, “irrational,” but “non-rational”—an important difference. Nor is Pareto required to use “rational thought” to justify his view: his book is not a treatise on psychology, and he addresses the issue in greater detail in The Mind and Society, which Stolyarov conveniently ignores. Even more curious is Stolyarov ad hominem attack on Pareto. Despite all their virtuous noise about logic, rank and file Objectivists frequently resort to ad hominem arguments, particularly of Stolyarov’s type. Stolyarov simply cannot admit that perhaps Pareto had reached his judgment about human beings from his own personal experience and his extensive knowledge of history! No, the only possible explanation is that Pareto himself is an irrationalist!

Yet if this is so, why does Stolyarov spend the rest of his review extolling Pareto’s analysis and making use of Pareto’s intellectual tools for his own ends? If Pareto’s “inner state” is that of an irrationalist, then what can he possibly say that is of any value to a follower of Rand, particularly when what Pareto says about elites is partially based on the very theory about human nature which Stolyarov, in deference to Rand, presumes to reject?

Stranger still, Stolyarov finds in Pareto an important Objectivist principles: the sanction of the victim! Can this really be? Can an individual whose inner state is confounded with irrational motivations be capable of anticipating a discovery of Rand by a half century? Well, not quite. While there are points of similarity between Pareto’s view and Rand’s on this issue, there are important difference as well. For Rand, the sanction of the victim occurs when the victim accepts the morality of the victimizer. According to Rand, businessmen allow themselves to be attacked because they agree with the morality of the attackers. That is not quite Pareto’s view. Pareto believes that businessmen who allow themselves to be attacked are merely cowards who are afraid to fight. Any agreement with the morality of their attackers is merely a rationalization to hide this pusillanimity.

Stolyarov concludes by attempting to enlist Pareto as a supporter of an optimistic scenario in which free market values triumph over the leftist elite:

If Pareto’s theory is to be extended to today’s conditions, the socialist/hippie elite is clearly in decline.  No more does it arouse college campuses in waves of violent activism [that’s because there’s no draft]; no more do its youngest heirs champion “saving the world” (though the hippies could only have ruined it), but rather they seek to pay ritual homage to left wing principles in order to get acceptance into elite academic institutions and thus “get ahead in life.” Gradually, the young elites are falling prey to the rising doctrines of materialism, self-interest, and prudence, which are to overturn all remaining vestiges of socialism. Government continues to expand and redistribution of wealth continues to occur, but this more due to cultural inertia rather than any deliberate, devious, and coordinated scheme from the New Deal or the Great Society. In the meantime, a growing, vigorous, dynamic, principled, and broad-based ideological backlash is emerging [Really?]; it covers multiple constituencies, as Pareto said it well might; from the neo-conservatives to the libertarians to the Objectivists, [but Objectivists hate libertarians!] the advocates of limiting government, liberating free enterprise, and making more room for individuals to exercise their own self-responsibility, are colorful, creative, industrious, and vocal personalities. The spokesmen of the leftist elite, on the other hand, are bland, predictable rehashers of the same credos they had espoused forty or even seventy years ago. [But this rehashing is very effective at stimulating the sentiments of the lower classes.] They have nothing new to offer, and are gradually themselves being infused with bits of free enterprise materialism in their personal lives, if not their explicit statements. [In other words, they are perfect exponents for a European style welfare state.]

Alas, those very same “bland, predictable rehashers” of the Left have retaken power and are in the process of extending government well beyond what FDR or LBJ would, in their wildest dreams, ever imagined. Stolyarov’s analysis, posted in 2004, does not, in retrospect, appear in the least prescient. Where did he go wrong? Well, to start out with, perhaps Pareto was right after all about human beings being motivated by non-rational sentiments. Stolyarov also failed to note that, unlike Italy at the turn of the last century, American society is not threatened by any violent domestic faction. Stolyarov’s “socialist/hippie elite” is not going to be attacked with force by any neo-conservatives, libertarians, or Objectivists any time soon. As long as they feel safe, the Left will continue to hold its own on the political stage.

Note that Stolyarov omits the religious right among his “multiple constituencies” opposing the “socialist/hippie” elite. Here is another possible source of error in Stolyarov: he would like to see the Left opposed by a “rational” elite. In this wish, he clearly misunderstands Pareto’s position. Pareto doesn’t necessarily conclude that all non-rational motivations will have a bad issue. Some may prove helpful. In politics, one can’t be too squeamish about alliances. The religious right was an important component of the Reagan revolution. Reagan doesn’t beat Carter without the help of religious conservatives. This very alliance, however, is regarded as sinister by Leonard Peikoff and other orthodox Objectivists, who regard it as a precursor of a theocracy! They believe they can “change the culture” by refuting Kant’s obscure subjectivist philosophical legerdemain. What would Pareto think of such a view? He would find it silly and patently non-rational. He might even suspect it of being a mere rationalization of powerless intellectuals afraid to own up to their own powerlessness. What do Objectivists want? A society in which all initiation of force is verboten. How do they expect to reach this state of affairs? By doing what intellectuals do best: caviling about obscure ideas. How wonderfully convenient! Too bad it isn’t true.

13 comments:

JayCross said...

What do Objectivists want? A society in which all initiation of force is verboten. How do they expect to reach this state of affairs? By doing what intellectuals do best: caviling about obscure ideas. How wonderfully convenient! Too bad it isn’t true.

Have to agree with this. If only it were as easy as refuting bad ideas with better ones.

Michael Prescott said...

Stolyarov: "Gradually, the young elites are falling prey to the rising doctrines of materialism, self-interest, and prudence, which are to overturn all remaining vestiges of socialism.... They have nothing new to offer, and are gradually themselves being infused with bits of free enterprise materialism ..."

There are two curious aspects to this passage. First, Stolyarov seems to think that "materialism" is an antidote to socialism, but isn't socialism itself a materialistic doctrine? A key premise of Marxism is that the mind is conditioned by the means of production.

Second, is this a tacit acknowledgment by Stolyarov that, in his view, Objectivism is a form of materialism? This would run counter to the frequent assertions of Objectivists that Rand's system transcends both materialism and spiritualism by creating a new synthesis.

Personally, I think Objectivism is a broadly materialist philosophy, despite all its talk about the glories of the mind. But I don't think it's consistently materialist - not because Rand transcended materialism, but because her thinking was so confused and contradictory that she never clarified the issues.

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

In politics, one can’t be too squeamish about alliances. - Greg
-----------------------------------
The religious right was an important component of the Reagan revolution.

Reagan doesn’t beat Carter without the help of religious conservatives. - Greg
-----------------------------------
In politics, one can’t be too squeamish about alliances. - Greg
___________________________________








Would your logic above apply to Nazis, Stalinists, racists, and Anti-Semites?

Michael Prescott said...

Off topic, but relevant to this blog: Robert Tracinski, an Objectivist, has put out an op-ed piece claiming that the recent increase in sales of Atlas Shrugged shows that "the Ayn Rand Factor in American politics is only beginning."

Tracinski excitedly reports that Atlas has been mentioned by prominent opinion-shapers - newspaper columnists, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, even Jimmy Fallon and Stephen Colbert.

Amusingly, he then asks, "Has it ever happened before that a book hits the bestseller list after it is first published—and then rises back to the bestseller list a half century later, purely through word of mouth?"

But it wasn't "purely through word of mouth," Mr. Tracinski - it was, at least in part, a result of all those references in the media that you just finished citing.

And it's hardly the first time an old book has shot back onto the bestseller lists because of media attention. Oprah Winfrey made Anna Karenina and East of Eden bestsellers, for instance, and both those books are older than Atlas.

As for the political implications, it remains to be seen whether this uptick in sales will translate into anything other than increased income for the Ayn Rand Institute.

Come to think of it, I guess this comment isn't as off-topic as I thought. It ties in with Stolyarov's predictions of a growing pro-capitalist, anti-government movement in the US in 2004. Five years later Obama is president, the most liberal Congress in history is spending like crazy, and the Objectivists are still smelling victory.

These folks give "living the dream" a whole new meaning.

Damien said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Damien said...

JayCross,

I also wish it were as easy as just refuting bad ideas. Personally I would love to live in a coercion free society, but I don't see that every happening. At least not in the real world. I don't see how a government, even a very overall libertarian government could operate without any coercion at all. I'm not an anarchist, although as far as I'm concerned we should try to keep government small, and for the most part out of the economy and out of our personal lives, I understand full well,we can't do without it completely,

Xtra Laj said...

I also wish it were as easy as just refuting bad ideas. Personally I would love to live in a coercion free society, but I don't see that every happening. At least not in the real world. I don't see how a government, even a very overall libertarian government could operate without any coercion at all. I'm not an anarchist, although as far as I'm concerned we should try to keep government small, and for the most part out of the economy and out of our personal lives, I understand full well,we can't do without it completely,

Maybe it's my cynicism, but I'm thinking more and more that the libertarian idea of government is a myth. In every society I've been too, the key has always been how the interests of the government have been aligned with some segment of society (economic, racial etc.) and how productive that segment is. America has for a few decades had its government aligned with the finance industry. Because government is made up of people with their own interests and "entangling alliances", the idea of a libertarian government that works mostly on a very strict definition of what the government is empowered to do, IMO, works against the vast majority of what we know about human nature. I'm not saying that there isn't any benefit to such a government - there might be, even as a theoretical idea. But achieving that kind of government, were it to be desirable would only be possible if those whose interests were favored by it managed to support it. And as far as I know, few libertarians are willing to do the kind of Machiavellian thinking required to plot their way to political success.

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

And as far as I know, few libertarians are willing to do the kind of Machiavellian thinking required to plot their way to political success. - Laj on

4/06/2009 04:16:00 AM
___________________________________






I am intrigued. What kind of Machiavellian manuever are you talking about?

and

how would you do it?

Xtra Laj said...

Red Grant:I am intrigued. What kind of Machiavellian manuever are you talking about?

and

how would you do it?


In this context, I'm using "Machiavellian" to mean whatever cunning/cynical moves it takes to get the job done, possibly involving deception. Human beings are NOT libertarian, no matter what the libertarians like to claim/believe, so a libertarian would have to moderate his message to appeal to larger swaths of society and forge some compromise with various political factions.

I'm not sure if that's possible, but the amount of compromise required and the level of deception makes it possible that any libertarian who tried such a scheme would emerge from it as anything but a libertarian.

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

Human beings are NOT libertarian, no matter what the libertarians like to claim/believe,... - Laj
___________________________________





Indeed, that has been my experience also.

Everyone of those who claim to be 'Libertarians', when I really pressed them to the corner, using what 'Objectivists' call, "Ultimate logical conclusion" approach,

ended up advocating anything but 'Libertarian' solution(that is, what they had claimed as such.)





___________________________________

...so a libertarian would have to

moderate

his message to appeal to

larger swaths

of society and forge some compromise with various political factions. - Laj
___________________________________





I believe for a Libertarian society to be established,

first of all, crypto-Libertarians must first of all should not present themselves as Libertarians.

They have to gain absolute power first, establish a totalitarian dictatorship.

and eliminate all opposition except genuine libertarians.


Once the absolute power has been gained, the crypto-Libertarians must launch an all out purge of opportunists who tailed along with the crypto-libertarians just for the sake of power.

and indoctrinate people to learn to think for themselves and take responsibility for their own actions gradually and methodically

and provide opportunities or even force them to exercise their newly acquired skills,

and once people start to become more proficient in exercising and philosophically/emotionally mature enough to take responsibility for their own actions,

gradually give them more power/rights according to their proficiency in exercising their skills and philosophical/emotional maturity in taking responsibility for their actions.


Ideally, the end product, the "New Man" is something along the line of

Howard Roark from "The Fountainhead".




___________________________________

I'm not sure if that's possible, but the amount of compromise required and the level of deception makes it possible that any libertarian who tried such a scheme would emerge from it as anything but a libertarian. - Laj
___________________________________





They would have to be philosophically mature not only about libertarianism

but also about what it takes to accomplish their objectives

without any illusion of sentimentality

or

romanticism.





Btw. Good talking to you. So far you're one of the few who see things as they really are without any sentimental or romantic illusion in this blog.

gregnyquist said...

Laj: "a libertarian would have to moderate his message to appeal to larger swaths of society and forge some compromise with various political factions. I'm not sure if that's possible, but the amount of compromise required and the level of deception makes it possible that any libertarian who tried such a scheme would emerge from it as anything but a libertarian."

That's right. It would not be possible to reach libertarianism through consensus, even if that consensus was formed through compromise and deceit. Too many vested interests would suffer from a libertarian scheme, and they would throw their considerable weight against it. The only other alternative would be to achieve libertarianism through force. Two problems here: (1) libertarians don't have the numbers or the temperament to apply force successfully; and (2) trying to impose libertarianism by force is rather contradictory and defeats the whole purpose of libertarianism. It's not clear you can actually force people to be free.

Xtra Laj said...

Red: Btw. Good talking to you. So far you're one of the few who see things as they really are without any sentimental or romantic illusion in this blog.

Thanks for the kind words. Hopefully, you'll still feel the same way if we have a disagreement :). Your probing style, though difficult to follow at times, is often incisive and insightful.

Red Grant said...

___________________________________

Thanks for the kind words. Hopefully, you'll still feel the same way if we have a disagreement :). - Laj
___________________________________




I do not necessarily have a problem just because someone disagrees with me, even if they are "wrong" by my standard.

... so long as they show to me they strive to be consistent by their standard.


I have a problem restraining myself from being sardonic, when someone violates his/her own standard and shown logically by me, using their own words,

still goes through denial phase.