1) Metaphysics: Objective Reality vs. the slippery subjectivity of “there are no absolutes”

2) Epistemology: Reason vs. Faith (whether it is in a deity, or any other form of collective mysticism)

3) Ethics: rational self-interest vs. self-immolation (in the form of glorified altruism)

4) Politics/economics: Capitalism vs. socialism

In contemporary America, conservatives align themselves strongly with #4, superficially with #1 and #3, but they usually abandon #2 completely (and so fail the consistency test). Leftists flunk all four, which (at least) makes them consistent! Most Leftists believe that their secular traditions make them automatic supporters of #2. The reality is that their Faith is just pointed in a different direction.

Corey Robin’s piece ignores most of the four principles listed above. His article is a pedantic hit piece, in keeping with The Nation’s style, that attacks Rand’s Ethics by labeling and oversimplification. A sprinkling of names and labels, used to connote either literary sophistication [Camus, Satre …] or intellectual snobbery [Glenn Beck, Brad Pitt, OMG!!]. Lacking the gravitas to challenge a philosophical position that seeks intellectual consistency, Robin employs the garbage of condescension. Channeling Salieri (Sire, Mozart’s composition is bad because … it has too few notes), and dropping the names of inbred intellectuals, the author attempts to paint Rand as either a megalomaniac fascist or as the simpleton favorite of Americans who have the adjective stoopid stamped across their foreheads.

Never mind, Robin says, that the utopian ideals of the fashionable academics on the Left were proven wrong by history. Their elegant prose and erudite sophistication sounded so deliciously nuanced, that they must be right – and Rand, the disagreeable simpleton must be wrong.

Why does Robin devote so much of the article recounting gossip about Hollywood actors and actresses who happen to be Rand fans? If 95% of Hollywood’s ‘beautiful people’ are aligned with the Chomsky Left (true), is that an argument (either for or against) such philosophies? One can only assume that Robin is employing this as a tactic to discredit Rand in some obscure way that must resonate only with regular readers of The Nation. {Sneer, Brangelina likes it, so its gotta be some lightweight fluff}

Robin says "... no conflicts of interest among rational men—which is just a Randian way of saying that every story has a happy ending”. Wow … how’s that for an oversimplification, done only to make a rather profound statement appear trite. In her writing, Rand expands on the statement at considerable length in her writing, but Corey Robin is only looking to score cheap shots.

In the next section, Robin reveals a surprisingly clear understanding of Rand’s disdain for intellectual middlemen. This actually unmasks the previous oversimplification as ... just another tactic. Then, Robin says: Aesthetically, this makes for kitsch (how exactly?); politically, it bends towards fascism (really? … in what universe?).

Later in the article, in order to make the point about fascism, the author takes quotes from Goebbels and Hitler, with some rather significant substitutions. The author makes it clear that he is intelligent enough to recognize the complete inversion that those substitutions represent – which exposes the intellectual malice in his attempt to prove a ridiculous point.

Rand actually exposed Fascism as a Leftist variant, complete with central planning and lack of freedom. The economics of Fascism are very similar to that of Socialism. The mild difference between Socialism and Fascism is that one is permitted to own property, but “The Dear Leader” decides what one is allowed do with it.

Later in the article, Robin shows that he understands Rand’s point that Kant was the antithesis of Aristotle. However, he betrays the juvenile cattiness of a lesser mind (or adopts exactly the right tone expected by his readership in The Nation) when he says “Whether or not Rand read Aristotle …faux-leather classics … there to impress the company …”

The author is at his most condescending when he likens Rand’s use of Aristotle’s law of non-contradictory identity to that of “gravity is heavy” and “sugar is sweet”. It is clear that he identifies more with the über-nuanced, but hopelessly inconsistent world view that is fashionable among Leftist elites.

Robin’s final paragraph betrays a rabid anti-Americanism which passes for culture in some circles. It probably inspires admiration and agreement from those who believe that it is sophisticated to hate anything that is American. However, it elicits only a gag-reflex from anyone who can see the ruinous implications of failed philosophies, whether they originate in America or elsewhere.

"When the only tool that you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."

 Politicians of the Leftist persuasion (and columnists who are similarly inclined) think that the problem of unemployment can be solved by 'silver bullet' Government programs. Therefore, one hears calls for programs such as ________ {insert favorite Leftist-icon boondoggle here, either high speed trains (that couldn't compete profitably against airlines), or green jobs (that lose money while producing expensive energy)}.  

The common theme is as follows: 'those free market bozos and their greedy, profit-seeking ways are bad, but we enlightened & well-intentioned central-planners will find better use for capital'.  

This is hogwash on a gargantuan scale. Trillions of dollars have been extracted from the private economy (via borrowing and taxation) and spent on feel-good programs.  

How to cut Govt spending? In a word: P R I V A T I Z E. Get the Govt out of areas that it should never have been allowed to take over.

 * begin with education. Our disastrous 60 year experiment with Public Education has succeeded - in lowering quality, increasing costs - all in the name of equal access.

The Leftist view is that corporate fat cats - who are not using their hoarded cash to hire workers - are the root cause of our economic malaise. This fits nicely into Leftist narrative, but is far from true.  

Corporations are profit-seeking entities, and their mission is to maximize their profits, not necessarily to maximize their headcount -- this much is true.  

When corporations have cash, they usually re-invest it, except for a small percentage that is distributed to shareholders in the form of dividends. If they see profitable opportunities, they will hire people, purchase machines, etc., in search of greater profits. Corporations hoard cash only when they don't see better opportunities. They also seek to improve their balance sheets, just like individuals who save at a higher rate during a downturn.  

It would require Leftists to re-think their entire world-view to realize that (greedy/evil/profit-seeking) corporations are reacting to the economic environment. And, (benevolent/altruistic/noble) politicians are creating a lousy environment with their feel-good policies.  

So, most of the Leftist root-cause analysis is backwards. They reverse cause and effect, because they favor the benevolent-sounding (but stifling) policies that create a lousy environment for business (and individuals) to go about their respective 'searches for happiness'.  

As recent events have indicated, Turkey has shown that it's 'reforms' were merely an attempt at token compliance to fake their way into the fakery that is the EU. A Govt without principles, trying to join an elite (but unprincipled) club for the illusion of power & prestige.  

Rejected by the EU-snobs, the Turkish Govt now swings along a different axis in search of the same illusory power & prestige. This time, it is the religion-secularism axis. And, once again, the Turkish Govt has chosen the wrong end of the axis.  

However, this isn't surprising - a religious party (albeit one that claims to be semi-secular) is trying to claim the mantle of 'true-belief' by attacking a conveniently located country that is brand-identified as 'the enemy'.  

The common thread in both these choices by the Turkish Govt?  

In the above, insert the name of any entitlement loving politician (.. FDR, LBJ, GWB, BHO ..) and your favorite entitlement as well. If you agree with the timeline, can you (honestly) support Universal Health Care? Or, even Medicare, Public Education and Social Security? If you disagree, prove that it is incorrect!

The ideological divide (as related to economics, Health Care etc) stems from two prevailing world-views:

1) Leftist view: Wealth is a zero-sum game - requiring Govt in the role of 'Robin Hood' to create a level playing field

2) Wealth grows constantly, from the mostly voluntary actions of buyers and sellers. Except for a few aberrations, a person's share of Wealth depends upon his/her capital [personal attributes: physical, mental -OR- property].

If you believe #1, then REDISTRIBUTION by Govt fiat is not just the only tool in your hands, it is also fair.

Consider an island of, perhaps 1000 people, and a few natural resources in the form of trees, rivers, beachfront etc. If a person A pays person B $100 for B's labor in creating planks of wood from trees. Person A then puts together a house that he sells person C a house for $1000.

A: earned $900, and created $1000 of value. Used some capital ($100) and his brain-capital (design skills) and some muscle capital (labor) and time. Presumably he also hired persons X, Y and Z to help him, which cut into his income, but allowed him to build 10x more houses.

B: earned $100, by investing his muscle capital (labor) and time.

C: bought a $1000 house, perhaps as an investment that could appreciate in value to $5000 a few yrs later. Also, in a productive & free economy, C presumably has valuable things to do with his time, earning much more than $1000 (and creating his own value) in the time that house-building-specialist B could build a house for him.

The best thing is that no one loses - although enviromentalists might bemoan the loss of trees.

Regarding the obvious inequities in wealth distribution: one could argue that there was a more equitable distribution during the 1930s depression era. Since then, there has been a surge in wealth creation. While the income multiples have gone up, it is also true that the entire distribution has gone up. When used in a vacuum, income equity is a false metric, but one that taps into populist angst and dovetails neatly into the rhetoric of Class Warfare. Observe that it is often used by Leftist economists (Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman being a leading exponent) to point to the failure of free market economic policies.

The sad truth is that Leftist policies which promise to redistribute wealth, are effective -- but they redistribute poverty, not wealth. In spite of their good intentions, Leftist policies damage the value-creating incentive/environment. By setting limits (via taxation, for example) on the activities that persons A and C perform out of self-interest, they also put person B out of work.

Note: Chomsky's article may be found at the following link: http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1986----.htm

Now for the article itself, in which Chomsky seems to say:

* there is a pure form of Socialism, which liberates working people from exploitation

* Soviet leaders, e.g. Lenin & Trotsky, then Stalin etc., were imperfect practitioners, whose methods (such as the creation of 'managers') contradicted the Marx-ian vision of a liberated, unexploited working class. Other than that ... Socialism rocks!

* the Soviet State and State capitalists are both guilty

   - Soviets: claim that their 'managers' are leading the world towards the socialist ideal, but they lie. [see below: this relates to the 'blame the ref, blame the players, but not the root-cause'' analogy]

   - State capitalists: use the "Soviet = socialist" lie to enslave their people into conformity & obedience; ensuring that they willingly 'rent' themselves to factory owners & managers [people who live in semi-Capitalist systems are scared, foolish, prostitutes].

For all his erudition, Chomsky's intellectual mistake, is in his very first step. The very premise of Socialism is flawed - to blame the Soviet implementation (but to praise the Socialist idea) is analogous to blaming a bullet for murder, when it was the the killer who originated the idea of murder.

Socialism attempts to level - not the playing field - but the outcome of the game. Imagine a soccer tournament in which the score of every match is decreed to be 2-2, and everyone 'shares' equally in the prize money, derived from ticket sales. Pretty soon no spectators show up, and that the players don't seem to play very well! There is no (entertainment) value, nor is there any incentive to practice, improve & succeed. In such a situation, do you blame the game, the referees and the unmotivated players - or, should you get a competitive spirit back into the system?

People are not equal, fungible entities, but individuals who possess different levels of capital [brain, brawn and bounty, hey, lets call them the three 'B's]. In a free market, the distribution of workers, managers and owners is largely based on an individual's 3B status. Yes, it is the luck of the draw, and isn't always fair. The good news is that in a free market, things aren't static over the long term. Yes, some people acquire bounty (wealth capital) via luck, or inheritance, usually the stored product of their ancestors' brain/brawn, maintained through the sanctity of property rights for their heirs. Abuse can and does take place, but usually at the margins. Some fortunes were made (historically) via corruption or enslavement/exploitation, usually way back in the Wild West era. However, in a competitive society, it is actually harder for dimwit heirs to grow family inheritances without coercive Govt influence - which is why the Rockefellers lean to the left.

Despite the competitive dog-eat-dog scenario that Chomsky-ites disparage under free-market Capitalism, society prospers through individual action, inspired by individual self-interest, not coercion. Compare that to the well intentioned Socialist plans that lead to non-competitive, dreary societies.

Socialism requires a non-human creature who, lacking any sort of self-interest gene, toils for the glory of the State, with only a subsistence-level life as his reward. Capitalism works with normal humans, improving their lives proportionate to their brains, labor and capital. While the outcome under Capitalism is by no means guaranteed, it has been proven to improve the standard of living in every country that has allowed some semblance of it to exist.

It is that simple ... really.

I also think that Chomsky's use of the term "State Capitalists" is crafty, but rather disingenuous. He has used a propagandist's tool - that of linguistic definition - by naming and offering only a grossly adulterated kind of Capitalism as the alternative to Soviet-style Communism. He is eloquently wistful about an idealized pure-Socialist pipe dream, but paints a gritty view of real-world State Capitalism, in which scared people prostitute themselves to factory owners. I guess we will need an American Karl Marx to show up and declare "Prostitutes of the Capitalist World, unite ..."

The reality is that even in the mixed-economy "State Capitalism" of modern-day US, people voluntarily show up for work on time, work hard in a competitive environment and earn a decent living. Some of us even obtain a sense of fulfilment from certain aspects of our jobs! I'm not suggesting that it is utopian - because it isn't - but average people lead decent lives.