Rand’s Egoism and Marx’s Collectivism: An Ethical Perspective

Abstract

IntroductionIt has been argued that Ayn Rand's ethics, in particular morality, on which she defends the individual's selfishness and capitalism, makes her doctrine superior to Marx's theory of collectivist socialism [1].Marx and Rand, despite differences, share common foundations in many respects. Both Marx's collectivism and Rand's individualism seek the natural bases of morals and of law, and their philosophies are based on natural reason as an ethical and social ideal, designating all the hopes and aspirations of modern man [2].In opposition to the Christian ideal, they both subscribe to the fundamental (natural) rights of man [3]. Marx to equality and fraternity -these humanitarian demands forming the basis of his collectivism; Rand to full freedom which forms the conceptual basis of her egoism. Thus, while Rand's concept of egoism is the antithesis of Marx's concept of socialism (signifying the uniting and intimate association of men), it also expresses the aspirations of humanity.Common to both Marx and Rand is that they regard ethical life as something added to the natural essence of man. Equally common to both is materialism. Rand's extreme egoism, holding that not ideas, but man's body is his essential nature, gives rise to materialism. In following Feuerbach (man is what he eats), Marx concluded that if the activity of the mind was a product of the body and the body is maintained by nourishment, then the mind is nothing but a product of this nourishment; and since nourishment is secured by work, the mind is finally the result of work and of production generally. Man, then, is what he makes. Marx and Engels found the meaning of history in processes of an economic nature. The determining forces in all social conditions are economic relations. They form the ultimate motives for all activities. Their change and their development are the only conditioning forces for public life and politics, and likewise for science and religion. All the different activities of civilization are then only offshoots of economic life.Doctrines rooted in extreme ethical dualism (à la Marx and Rand) have failed to provide a viable model of social organization. Both Rand's and Marx's approaches are marked by a distorted picture of reality where, on the one hand, living as a true individual would exclude altruism and, on the other hand, living as communal man would exclude rights to one's individuality. Man's nature is probably a measure of both egoism and collectivism, a kind of an unsociablesociability (Kant). If this is so, then there does not have to be absolute opposition between the individual and the collective.

Marxist Philosophy in The Selected Poems of Brecht and Naaz Khialvi: A Comparative Critique

“…Brecht's Marxist inclinations are reflected in the discourses of the poem, "To Posterity" because he prefers to the Marxian notion of desiring happiness and prosperity for all not to the personal happiness of the individual. Marx collectivism is based on interaction with other human beings (Riha, 1994). In the first stanza, Brecht's Marxist collectivism is reflected when in a rhetorical question he asks how he can eat and drink when his food and water are snatched from the hungry and thirsty people: "They tell me: eat and drink.…”

The (Capitalist) making of an addict: A Marxian and Durkheimian perspective on modern manifestations of addiction

“…Types of work available to the majority or as Marx refer to the Proletariat, are not significantly meaningful but generate profit for the elite. The majority has very little agency in the type of labor they engage in, lacks access to what they produce, and is producing for the advantage of another who is manipulating and exploitative (Riha, 1994). Durkheim"s vantage point on labor is analogous with Marx"s. "It has often been accused of degrading the individual by making him a machine" (Durkheim, 1933: 371).…”

“…Essentially, the objectification of one other bleeds into all types of relationships throughout the collective (Riha 1994). This concept of the ego as understood by Marx is interesting because he denies individualism; he claims the ego can only be understood in its relation to the collective, society and the individual are indivisible from one another (Riha, 1994: 67).…”

“…So, as a whole, human relations are unfulfilling and encouraged to be in opposition to one another, leaving masses of people with little idea or skills to create types of relationships that support their true selves and overall well-being. This is not anyone"s fault necessarily, because people act on what they are taught, and society teaches us so many falsities about ourselves and how we are supposed to function (Riha, 1994).…”