Sunday, July 26, 2009

kali yuga, ma, sha ti de

i look around and see death everywhere.

as the seconds tick by i see the world growing and dying in a vast, single instant.

the baby bird outside your door, still stares up at me from burning tarmac. ites eyes are gone but i feel its gaze and look to it every time i come here.

there is hardly anything left but the feathers it tried to grow before its life ended and its shell fell still.

most never see it, but it calls me every time i come here. even its corpse will soon fade to nothing.

what next will bring me to tears?

the smallest things make me break down, but i cant really cry anymore.

my eyes, wont stay shut. i'm staring beyond you into the rest of the swirling chaos.

i've noticed a lot of run ins between rand's objectivism and orlov's collapse preparedness philosophy.

the two main problems i see are:

an objectivist society will not work because the stupid and lazy vastly outnumber the intelligent and productive. the producers will be seen as elitist and evil and brought down, even if they built themselves up with nothing more than true grit and self sufficiency.

an orlov collapse preparedness society closely resembles communism in its purest form: a communism based on the community and barter economy, not on centralized government dictatorship and fiat currency. communes are still out there, and they seem to work fairly well as long as the number of people remains small. but with a vast population, communism simply doesnt function (at least not well enough to make people happy). if, however, you can break up a population of cyclopean proportions into small, sustainable groups, his ideas could work wonderfully.

i find that orlov's position on doing things yourself and being responsible for yourself to almost mirror rand's objectivism until we come to his idea of the gift economy, in which he states that altruism is a good thing, that when we are all indebted to one another, everyone gets richer. rand abhorred the concept of altruism, which she defined as the belief that one man's property , life, or time should be beholden to another for anything other that purely selfish reasons. to live and think this way is the purest act of evil according to rand.

these are generalizations, to be sure. rand's characterization of the wide eyed martyr and orlov's idea of an economy in which we all feel we owe each other something are extremes in a world made up of shades of grey. what i find fascinating is that that these two would vehemently disagree with each other on many topics if put to debate, yet their philosophies and solutions share so much in common.

the most disheartening thing is something i've known since i was old enough to observe the people around me: neither idea will ever get a chance to succeed on a large scale because of the inability of the human race to freely cooperate outside of clique-ish social structures and vast social inertia. good ideas fall to the side while madness, denial and suffering continue to reign, as people reach their hands to the sky and beg god for the answer that is right under their noses.

i'm glad kali yuga is here, and i'm glad i'm down here to watch.

and read
to see what i'm talking about.


Reiven said...

I think you are too smart for your own happiness.
I think the flaw in Rand's objectivism is that it doesn't take greed into consideration. All of her characters are honorable "good" men, but wealthy honorable good men are a rarity. I'm sure you know that Alan Greenspan was (for a time) affiliated with Rand and her inner circle. I think a lot of Rand's ideas have been implemented in our financial system. You can see how well that's turned out. I think Rand's philosophy was too much of a reaction to the communist party and the horrors of her life in Russia. I think she had valid points, but any extreme philosophy is bound to fail.
I keep finding you. Or maybe I just keep seeing you on Wide Lawns? Is it rude to say I enjoy your rants? ;-)

Reiven said...

i didn't click the "e-mail follow-up" so,now I am.