The Fountainhead & Atlas shrugged

[french frank]

....that is certainly why I read the 2 books....I flagged them up at some point, wrote the names in my notebook, saw the Adam Curtis doc and was reminded to buy. Ayn Rand was seen through by many readers, and adopted by a few folk wishing to believe themselves strong intelligent heroes bestriding aloft from us ants.....but mainly they are badly written and tedious. Take out all the diatribe and polemics....you just have an awfully tedious love story about 2 very flawed unrealistic characters....by a person who couldn't recognise hypocracy, irony and double-standards in her own life.

....Ed: and i come to this debate, as a man who has 5 days of crockery washing up waiting to be tackled. I started reading Dickens Barnaby Rudge last week through a love of Dickens b) a interest as to what the Gordon Riots were....got 3 very badly written stop/start unflowing chapters into it, decided that was enough-it was a dud. Then I wikied Gordon Riots. I bought the 3 volume (1000+page) biography of Robert Frost because i didn't like him as a man or poet....

Masochist.

[Joseph K]

Waded in dangerous waters too deep for me here.

Shocked, truly shocked by and still reeling from some revelations made on this thread.

I really must thank Joseph K’s reference to Buffett’s quote.

What a shocking, shameful thing to say. I honestly did not know WB said this – what a despicable, unforgiveable thing to say, and now come to think of it, what an accurate reflection of the uncaring rich.

The quote (which I got from David Harvey's book The Enigma of Capital, which says it's from 'The Sage of Omaha' ... I googled that and it turns out that that is a sobriquet of Buffett, so I am none the wiser) is shocking in its brutal honesty, but it isn't a shameful thing to say, nor despicable or unforgiveable - it's just true. There's no such thing as the caring rich; charity is not an effective means of effecting any real change, other than to ease the consciences of the rich - https://www.theguardian.com/society/...the-super-rich

So I think the point stands whether or not one knows the context of the quote. See also Wilde's The Soul of Man Under Socialism for a critique of charity.

[french frank]

So I think the point stands whether or not one knows the context of the quote.

The point itself may stand, though the interpretation of Buffett's meaning, judged from the inaccurate form in which you quote it, may have been skewed because he is a billionaire. He seems to agree with you that 'the rich winning' is an unacceptable state of affairs. But then, he eases his conscience with his philanthropy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/b...donations.html "The billionaire investor has donated $37 billion worth of Berkshire Hathaway stock to date, part of his pledge to give away most of his substantial fortune." The cad.

[Joseph K]

The point itself may stand, though the interpretation of Buffett's meaning, judged from the inaccurate form in which you quote it, may have been skewed because he is a billionaire. He seems to agree with you that 'the rich winning' is an unacceptable state of affairs. But then, he eases his conscience with his philanthropy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/b...donations.html "The billionaire investor has donated $37 billion worth of Berkshire Hathaway stock to date, part of his pledge to give away most of his substantial fortune." The cad.

One wonders why and how he became so rich in the first case if he really agrees with me.

[french frank]

One wonders why and how he became so rich in the first case if he really agrees with me.

It is possible to agree selectively with socialistic ideas without being a socialist. Thinking vaguely that 'the rich shouldn't win' (don't we all think that?) doesn't take on board the whole socialist doctrine about capitalism. I must investigate what is meant, by different schools of thought, by 'capital'.

Sorry, corrected 'capitalism' to 'capital'.

[eighthobstruction]

It is possible to agree selectively with socialistic ideas without being a socialist. Thinking vaguely that 'the rich shouldn't win' (don't we all think that?) doesn't take on board the whole socialist doctrine about capitalism. I must investigate what is meant, by different schools of thought, by 'capital'.

Sorry, corrected 'capitalism' to 'capital'.

George Soros is an interesting character/dynasy....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros who seems to hover up any surplus monies at will...

....I seem to remember much debate ref Buffets decision to restrict his families inheritence....he has been amiable on any footage I have seen of him....

[french frank]

...I seem to remember much debate ref Buffets decision to restrict his families inheritence....he has been amiable on any footage I have seen of him....

Yes, that's why JK's quote seemed to be out of character for him, capitalist though he undoubtedly is. In the context of Ayn Rand's philosophy, Buffett would not be one of her heroes. Unlesss you think of him obtaining his greatest happiness by wrongheadedly donating his billions to prop up charities which, in a socialist world, would not need to exist but which, in the real world, certainly do.

[eighthobstruction]

.....ref his children...."I want to give my kids just enough so that they would feel that they could do anything, but not so much that they would feel like doing nothing".....no real; or any really scandals around Buffett ....slow to have personal mobile phones and computers....jocular and sport loving, not extravagant....<<< (Buffett) , Ted Turner, George Soros and Barry Diller, who use their fortunes to clean up America." (wiki)>>>>....seems pretty clean to me....intending to give 99% $$$ away, and has not been an asset stripper type....

[Joseph K]

It is possible to agree selectively with socialistic ideas without being a socialist. Thinking vaguely that 'the rich shouldn't win' (don't we all think that?) doesn't take on board the whole socialist doctrine about capitalism. I must investigate what is meant, by different schools of thought, by 'capital'.

Sorry, corrected 'capitalism' to 'capital'.

Seems a bit confused to me. What selective socialist ideas does Buffett agree with, or are you talking about yourself? It seems oxymoronic to talk about the rich 'not winning' when we live in a world ('the real world') where becoming rich is by definition winning and that it is necessarily contingent upon the exploitation of the poor.

I find it funny that you think the quote was out of character for Buffett - is he not normally as open, honest and accurate as that?

If Buffett was to really put his money where his mouth is, he'd chuck a few billion towards a (genuinely) left-wing media outlet - if he were really serious about thinking his class shouldn't be winning, because as we've established, charity is utterly useless.

[french frank]

Seems a bit confused to me. What selective socialist ideas does Buffett agree with, or are you talking about yourself?

Too many misconceptions and this is taking us well away from Ayn Rand and her philosophy. My sole point was to say you missquoted Buffett, as so many other left-wing sources have done, presumably because you used secondary sources which share your agenda. I linked to the transcript of the interview from which he was missquoted.

[Richard Barrett]

If Buffett was to really put his money where his mouth is, he'd chuck a few billion towards a (genuinely) left-wing media outlet - if he were really serious about thinking his class shouldn't be winning, because as we've established, charity is utterly useless.

Exactly. He was right to say that it's a class war which his class is winning, and, if he really thinks it shouldn't be, he would dispose of his fortune in a different way. The problem with billionaire philanthropists is that they seem always to think their status entitles them to decide what their donations should be spent on, and strangely enough this tends not to include the kinds of recipients who would call into question the existence of their class and wealth. I don't think taking the first part of his utterance out of context misrepresents him particularly, and using the whole of it doesn't make him look any better.

[eighthobstruction]

Seems a bit confused to me. What selective socialist ideas does Buffett agree with, or are you talking about yourself? It seems oxymoronic to talk about the rich 'not winning' when we live in a world ('the real world') where becoming rich is by definition winning and that it is necessarily contingent upon the exploitation of the poor.

I find it funny that you think the quote was out of character for Buffett - is he not normally as open, honest and accurate as that?

If Buffett was to really put his money where his mouth is, he'd chuck a few billion towards a (genuinely) left-wing media outlet - if he were really serious about thinking his class shouldn't be winning, because as we've established, charity is utterly useless.

....it is with sigh that I write this....the inflection in the post is angry and aimed....or is that words on paper, even misquoted words can be misinterpreted. It may be you feel what you say is substantive; I do not. Could it be that what you write is being misinterpreted by me. Could it be that several different interpretations (even if it were actually a bona fide quoite) that it could have been said in a jocular way, or with a shrug and raised eyebrows. I don't think Buffet puts winning on a pedestal from what I have read, and from what I have seen on current affairs programmes, he is down to earth unshowy. Why do you have to believe he is prone to subtefuge, covering up some vein of avarice.
Where has it been established that Charity is utterly useless - Why can he only be genuine if he gives to left wing outlets -aren't AID/HIV programmes and medication enough, also Medicines and resources to combat Mosquitoes or at the other end money to sport and keeping local newspapers running. He is a Capitalist sure but one of the better ones.
And I think we are all fairly selective about which parts of Socialism we agree with, once realpolitic is applied....or come to that what Socialism means or can possibly be in 2021

[french frank]

if he really thinks it shouldn't be, he would dispose of his fortune in a different way.

As a matter of interest, do have anything more specific in mind? Trying to peg this back to what most of us (I think) find shocking about Ayn Rand's philosophy is the placing of self at the centre of everything. Our happiness as the goal of life, and pursuing that singlemindedly portrayed as a heroic virtue. But to imagine that a capitalist billionaire might devote his millions to, for example, a social theory which, had it been in place, would have prevented him from supporting those causes which he chose to spend his money on, seems at least unrealistic.

Having sold his soul to capitalist Mammon, how can he redeem himself in socialists' eyes? Rather than putting food in hungry mouths, curing sickness (helping, alphabetical order: Animals, At-Risk/Disadvantaged Youths, Blood, Marrow & Organ Donation, Cancer, Children, Creative Arts, Disaster Relief, Education, Family/Parent Support, Health, Homelessness, Human Rights, Poverty, Unemployment/Career Support, Women), he should support socialist media outlets? Or what?

[Joseph K]

But to imagine that a capitalist billionaire might devote his millions to, for example, a social theory which, had it been in place, would have prevented him from supporting those causes which he chose to spend his money on, seems at least unrealistic.

Yes well, had it been in place, those causes would have no need of his money in the first place!

Having sold his soul to capitalist Mammon, how can he redeem himself in socialists' eyes? Rather than putting food in hungry mouths, curing sickness (helping, alphabetical order: Animals, At-Risk/Disadvantaged Youths, Blood, Marrow & Organ Donation, Cancer, Children, Creative Arts, Disaster Relief, Education, Family/Parent Support, Health, Homelessness, Human Rights, Poverty, Unemployment/Career Support, Women), he should support socialist media outlets? Or what?

Yes, support socialist media outlets. Friedrich Engels was an enlightened wealthy capitalist in that his wealth - as far as I know - enabled Marx's writing, as well as his own. The idea is to endeavour to effect systemic change, so as to render redundant charity and philanthropy. Speaking of which, did you read the guardian article I posted earlier? Here are some relevant quotes:

At present, most philanthropists with concerns about disadvantage tend to focus on alleviating its symptoms rather than addressing its causes. They fund projects to feed the hungry, create jobs, build housing and improve services. But all that good work can be wiped out by public spending cuts, predatory lending or exploitative low levels of pay.

And there is a deeper problem. When it comes to addressing inequality, a well intentioned philanthropist might finance educational bursaries for children from disadvantaged backgrounds, or fund training schemes to equip low-paid workers for better jobs. That allows a few people to exit bad circumstances, but it leaves countless others stuck in under-performing schools or low-paid insecure work at the bottom of the labour market. Very few concerned philanthropists think of financing research or advocacy to address why so many schools are poor or so many jobs are exploitative. Such an approach, says David Callahan of Inside Philanthropy, is like “nurturing saplings while the forest is being cleared”.

By contrast, conservative philanthropists have, in the past two decades, operated at a different level. Their agenda has been to change public debate so that it is more accommodating of their neoliberal worldview, which opposes the regulation of finance, improvements in the minimum wage, checks on polluting industries and the establishment of universal healthcare. They fund climate change-denying academics, support free-market thinktanks, strike alliances with conservative religious groups, create populist TV and radio stations, and set up “enterprise institutes” inside universities, which allows them, not the universities, to select the academics.

Research by Callahan reveals that more liberal-minded philanthropists have never understood the importance of cultivating ideas to influence key public policy debates in the way conservatives have.

[french frank]

Yes well, had it been in place, those causes would have no need of his money in the first place!

But it wasn't, alas.

Yes, support socialist media outlets. Friedrich Engels was an enlightened wealthy capitalist in that his wealth - as far as I know - enabled Marx's writing, as well as his own. The idea is to endeavour to effect systemic change, so as to render redundant charity and philanthropy. Speaking of which, did you read the guardian article I posted earlier? Here are some relevant quotes:

There is the future, and there's the here-and-now. Someone has to cope with the here-and-now when governments don't.

As for: "Research by Callahan reveals that more liberal-minded philanthropists have never understood the importance of cultivating ideas to influence key public policy debates in the way conservatives have."

Well, there is Soros's Central European University dedicated to the furtherance of Open Societies. But unless you can persuade a liberal-minded billionaire that socialism is, effectively, not only the answer to the inequality and injustices of the world/capitalism but it is actually a theory that would work in practice they'll probably footle around with the here-and-now Donkey Sanctuaries.