| Revision as of 21:39, 26 February 2009 editZazaban (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers10,569 edits →Reply (Copied over): new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:34, 3 March 2009 edit undo67.202.78.10 (talk) →A message to Jadabocho: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| ::It is true the creators of objectivism ''claim'' it is individualist. But if claiming something is individualist is all you need for it to be individualist, then there clearly are many more things that are individualist. In reality, it offers individualism only for a small number of human beings compared to the majority: those who are capitalist supermen of some kind. Is it individualism for workers, for peasants and farmers, and for the dispossessed? No. It very clearly stated that corporate leaders are the champions of it and the epitome of it. I would argue that since it is an elitist type of "individualism" that in reality only betters a small number of people, just as Lenin's Bolshevism only bettered a small number of people, that it isn't individualist. It also is very clearly biased to one type of thought, and one side of an argument, while individualism itself is far broader than that. To say the Hungarians and Czechs and Chinese who rose up against the communist party, yet still believed in a libertarian form of communism were not individualist, is the type of thing a Rand or a Rothbard would do, and this is also elitist and exclusive. Those people WOULD say they were individualist, or would agree with most nonpartisan individualist statements. The fact that Randists and Rothbardians have already made up their minds for us what we are or aren't based on their own set of criteria makes them very simmilar to Leninists. No one has even bothered to address the issue of how un-individualist working for someone else is, even if you "agree" or "contract" to it.. and nobody has talked abotu how un-individualist it is to use force to keep someone from using some land or factory equipment. Individualism is not synonymous with capitalism, and Objectivism is a cultlike, somewhat bizarre ideology that many people even on the right have rejected as a relic of Rand (who wasn't even an American, yet we are told capitalist individualism is an American phenomenon - Bastiat wasn't American - what about that? And if we are to respect claims that individualism is by nature "capitalist" in America, why have capitalist ideologies created capitalist oriented entries in the Spanish wikipedia? Respect (or lack of it) for your opposition is a two way street.) ] Feb 25, 2009 7:12 PM EST | ::It is true the creators of objectivism ''claim'' it is individualist. But if claiming something is individualist is all you need for it to be individualist, then there clearly are many more things that are individualist. In reality, it offers individualism only for a small number of human beings compared to the majority: those who are capitalist supermen of some kind. Is it individualism for workers, for peasants and farmers, and for the dispossessed? No. It very clearly stated that corporate leaders are the champions of it and the epitome of it. I would argue that since it is an elitist type of "individualism" that in reality only betters a small number of people, just as Lenin's Bolshevism only bettered a small number of people, that it isn't individualist. It also is very clearly biased to one type of thought, and one side of an argument, while individualism itself is far broader than that. To say the Hungarians and Czechs and Chinese who rose up against the communist party, yet still believed in a libertarian form of communism were not individualist, is the type of thing a Rand or a Rothbard would do, and this is also elitist and exclusive. Those people WOULD say they were individualist, or would agree with most nonpartisan individualist statements. The fact that Randists and Rothbardians have already made up their minds for us what we are or aren't based on their own set of criteria makes them very simmilar to Leninists. No one has even bothered to address the issue of how un-individualist working for someone else is, even if you "agree" or "contract" to it.. and nobody has talked abotu how un-individualist it is to use force to keep someone from using some land or factory equipment. Individualism is not synonymous with capitalism, and Objectivism is a cultlike, somewhat bizarre ideology that many people even on the right have rejected as a relic of Rand (who wasn't even an American, yet we are told capitalist individualism is an American phenomenon - Bastiat wasn't American - what about that? And if we are to respect claims that individualism is by nature "capitalist" in America, why have capitalist ideologies created capitalist oriented entries in the Spanish wikipedia? Respect (or lack of it) for your opposition is a two way street.) ] Feb 25, 2009 7:12 PM EST | ||
| == A message to Jadabocho == | |||
| The AI/IAF/AFI has renewed interest in wikipedia. I hope that ochlarchists like Zazaban and Skomorokh can be more matter of fact this time! The AI is certainly not a "hoax/spam/non-notable; worth keeping an eye on for quality control", see my arguments below. AI/IAF/AFI is significantly the largest anarchist organization in the world. This is based on reliable, independent third party sources, and I hope thus that my scientifical contributions will not be deleted. | |||
Revision as of 03:34, 3 March 2009
Welcome!
Hello Jadabocho, welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users - please check it out! If you need help, visit Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
Skomorokh 22:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Sidebars
The sidebars you added to the article on Anarchism are arresting. I am not sure that they are relevant, though. They bring together several loosely related concepts which share common theme (i.e., "individualism," "socialism"). The format is not one that is common in Misplaced Pages. That is not to say that it is not good, just that it represents a departure from current practice. I would suggest some discussion on the talk page of the article before adding them. In the meantime, I've taken them out of the article. Sunray (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Little context in Template:Individualism sidebar
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Template:Individualism sidebar, by another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Template:Individualism sidebar is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Misplaced Pages:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Template:Individualism sidebar, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Reply (Copied over)
- It is true the creators of objectivism claim it is individualist. But if claiming something is individualist is all you need for it to be individualist, then there clearly are many more things that are individualist. In reality, it offers individualism only for a small number of human beings compared to the majority: those who are capitalist supermen of some kind. Is it individualism for workers, for peasants and farmers, and for the dispossessed? No. It very clearly stated that corporate leaders are the champions of it and the epitome of it. I would argue that since it is an elitist type of "individualism" that in reality only betters a small number of people, just as Lenin's Bolshevism only bettered a small number of people, that it isn't individualist. It also is very clearly biased to one type of thought, and one side of an argument, while individualism itself is far broader than that. To say the Hungarians and Czechs and Chinese who rose up against the communist party, yet still believed in a libertarian form of communism were not individualist, is the type of thing a Rand or a Rothbard would do, and this is also elitist and exclusive. Those people WOULD say they were individualist, or would agree with most nonpartisan individualist statements. The fact that Randists and Rothbardians have already made up their minds for us what we are or aren't based on their own set of criteria makes them very simmilar to Leninists. No one has even bothered to address the issue of how un-individualist working for someone else is, even if you "agree" or "contract" to it.. and nobody has talked abotu how un-individualist it is to use force to keep someone from using some land or factory equipment. Individualism is not synonymous with capitalism, and Objectivism is a cultlike, somewhat bizarre ideology that many people even on the right have rejected as a relic of Rand (who wasn't even an American, yet we are told capitalist individualism is an American phenomenon - Bastiat wasn't American - what about that? And if we are to respect claims that individualism is by nature "capitalist" in America, why have capitalist ideologies created capitalist oriented entries in the Spanish wikipedia? Respect (or lack of it) for your opposition is a two way street.) Radical Mallard Feb 25, 2009 7:12 PM EST
A message to Jadabocho
The AI/IAF/AFI has renewed interest in wikipedia. I hope that ochlarchists like Zazaban and Skomorokh can be more matter of fact this time! The AI is certainly not a "hoax/spam/non-notable; worth keeping an eye on for quality control", see my arguments below. AI/IAF/AFI is significantly the largest anarchist organization in the world. This is based on reliable, independent third party sources, and I hope thus that my scientifical contributions will not be deleted.