RoR: Forum

So who is the resident socialist?

Post 1

Thursday, December 17, 2009 - 6:39am

The slogan "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" will never sound the same now that you've raised this question.
(Edited by Peter Reidy on 12/17, 6:39am)

Post 2

Thursday, December 17, 2009 - 7:01am

First, a question... are they good in bed?

Post 3

Thursday, December 17, 2009 - 8:08am

True - there are many reasons for dating...

Post 4

Thursday, December 17, 2009 - 9:52am

If the definition of "date" includes "fuck a really hot woman", then sure, I'd consider "dating" a socialist.

Seriously, though, there is more to a relationship and attraction than one's partner's political views. I'm married to a squishy Democrat-lite (or as they call them here in Hawaii in honor of our tax-raising, tree-hugging RINO governor, "Linglecrats"), and we simply have to endure the verbal equivalent of an eye-roll and an exasperated sigh when discussing several aspects of modern political theory.

And, a good friend of mine is a radical firebrand socialist / communist, depending on how much alcohol he's imbibed. We get along great so long as we don't talk about politics. I could see a dating relationship working based on a mutual cease-fire agreement to never talk about politics.

Post 5

Thursday, December 17, 2009 - 9:55am

It depends on what's meant by "socialist" in this context. Is it intended to mean someone who believes that some kind of government mandates and wealth transfers are good? Or is it intended to mean someone who believes the economic system should be completely directed by government officials and who loves to make vicious statements about business leaders and profit-seeking enterprises? That makes a difference, I think. Obviously, the former is true of most people in society today, even on the political right. The latter would be intolerable to me in the context of a very intimate relationship, as I think it would be for anyone who respects markets and entrepreneurs.

Post 6

Thursday, December 17, 2009 - 10:14am

C'mon, it's obvious. It means would you date a member of the Communist Party to get money for your dying boyfriend, but then fall in love with him, even though he shoots himself at the end...
(Edited by Joe Maurone on 12/17, 10:29am)

Post 7

Thursday, December 17, 2009 - 10:18am

Good one, Joe - sanction...

Post 8

Thursday, December 17, 2009 - 10:30am

Thankee kindly.

Thursday, December 17, 2009 - 11:26am

Joe: "It means would you date a member of the Communist Party to get money for your dying boyfriend, but then fall in love with him, even though he shoots himself at the end..."

I'm not sure I understand the point, Joe. Are you saying that because Kira was with Andrei for Leo, that proves it should make no difference whether you or I date a pure socialist who habitually attacks private enterprise and business leaders and who agitates for total expropriation? Maybe that's not what you meant. If it was, I'd say there are two big differences: First, Kira's motive in We the Living vs. yours or mine. Second, a young and idealistic Communist Party member in the one-party Soviet Union vs. a vicious and outspoken opponent of private enterprise and business leaders in contemporary America. Morally and practically, I think if you engage in an intimate relationship with someone like that, you won't be very pleased with the result.

Post 10

Thursday, December 17, 2009 - 12:21pm

It was meant more out of humor, Jon, don't overthink it.

But no, I wouldn't date a socialist.

Post 11

Thursday, December 17, 2009 - 1:26pm

Socialist and Communists certainly still share some of the same positive goals that Objectivists find valuable. The problem lies in the underlying philosophies they would support in achieving those goals. Therefore it is not so unrealistic to think that two people sharing a common 'good' goal could come together and find each other attractive in the process.

They can even cooperate to an extent to reach the given goal, without having to cede to one another's arguments. How well, how far, their relationship will progress depends greatly on what each of them really wants out of the relationship. They can still function independently where their passions diverge, and in cooperation where their passions converge. I think this happens every day.

I think Rand tried to elevate or glorify sex much in the same way as churches do, by ascribing a singular and proper role for sex in human life. Nature pretty much dictates procreation as a necessary act, just for preservation of the species. However, humans have the ability to 'take it or leave it'. We can chose when and if (okay, just sometimes) we want to have sex, and have the intellectual capacity to evaluate and decide what most motivates us to have sex.

The physical sensation is certainly good (as they say, the worst I ever had was great). That serves as one motivation. Certain physical characteristics also serve as strong attractors. Plus certain personality and intellectual characteristics can serve as (even stronger) attractors. By the time you factor in personal egos, there is a whole laundry list of legitimate motivations for engaging in sex. People may have sex for simple companionship, sex for simple physical pleasure, sex for playful fun, passionate and hungry sex, pure lustful sex, ego-stroking grudge sex, sex for re-assurance, and probably a few others (one-upsmanship?). I don't think that any of these are wrong, so long as it is mutually consensual sex.

Anyhow, whew! Did I lose the topic, or does this still fit in*

jt

*with no puns intended.

Post 12

Friday, December 18, 2009 - 10:31am

Okay, Joe, I thought that might be true. On these discussion boards, sometimes you have to ask.

Jay, I think much of your post indicates how you view this question. Objectivism rejects the idea of a mind/body split. You're focusing on sex as a physical act. Sex is a great and important aspect of a dating relationship--but it's not the whole relationship.

In a romantic context, whether you've been dating for a few days or a few months, there should be some compatibility of basic beliefs/values. There certainly shouldn't be *disdain* for the other person's basic beliefs/values. To date and have sex with someone who seriously holds philosophic beliefs/values that are the *opposite* of yours, and to justify it to yourself by saying, "I just want sex with anyone who looks good to me and will do it," is a perfect example of splitting mind and body.

Objectivism, consistent with prior premises, views proper sex not only as physical but also psychological. It's an expression based on the union of body and mind. A true socialist doesn't merely desire to compromise justice in the economic realm but to completely invert it, the result of a deep hostility toward egoism and individualism and a wrong psycho-epistemic method. The notion that socialists might agree with Objectivists on this or that concrete point is *not* fundamental; it's just a weak rationalization.
(Edited by Jon Trager on 12/18, 11:47am)

Post 13

Friday, December 18, 2009 - 10:58am

Jon: "Okay, Joe, I thought that might be true. On these discussion boards, sometimes you have to ask."

No worries, Jon, been there...:)

I hate to explain jokes, but in this case, I'll point out the reason for it: that scenario is a good one to demonstrate the clash between sense of life and explicit philosophy, and how we can fall for one's sense of life in spite of ideological clashes. It's all very Puckish...

Post 14

Friday, December 18, 2009 - 11:29am

Sexy Pelosi

(Edited by Ted Keer on 12/19, 8:17am)

Post 15

Friday, December 18, 2009 - 11:55am

Re Ted's pic of a "sexy" Pelosi -- IT BURNS! IT BURNS! AAAAAGH!

Oh, and I think you're confusing "gay leatherboy" with "Nazi".

NTTAWWT.

Post 16

Friday, December 18, 2009 - 12:21pm

I don't think anyone wants them posted here.
(Edited by Ted Keer on 12/19, 8:21am)

Post 17

Friday, December 18, 2009 - 12:57pm

Jon,

I believe we can intellectually recognize the differences (split) between material goals (a great seafood restaurant) and philosophy. I'll admit I went of on a tangent about sex (posted partly for fun). However, ignore that tangent and concentrate on the first three paragraphs of my post.

We do not have to make enemies of people when the situation doesn't call for it. The fact that we might have diametrically opposed philosophies doesn't necessarily come into play when choosing colors, appreciating a good meal, sharing a story that reflects commonly felt human values, or discovering common interest and hobbies. We can all enjoy those with anyone, without necessarily referring to our particular philosophical framework.

Where philosophical difference does have an influence on our choices, legitimate conflicts can arise, and should be dealt with in a manner suiting the situation. Simply put, though, all situations do not require philosophical angst. We can just interact with each other on what we do agree.

jt

Post 18

Friday, December 18, 2009 - 2:38pm

You can watch Ninotchka in 12 parts on YouTube. Ninotchka herself enters about 7 1/2 minutes into part 2. Bidinotto once observed that on the strength of her first few minutes onscreen she'd be perfect as Dagny Taggart. Better, see it in a theater.

Post 19

Friday, December 18, 2009 - 3:59pm