re: #31 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

Ideas that originate as reactions to other ideas are disqualified as first principles unless they happen to be axioms themselves— and in Rand’s case, they are.

I don’t understand the above sentence. Are you saying that rand lacks axioms or not? First principles are just basic assumptions from which we construct our reasoning. As long as the proponent argue that these assumptions aren’t derived from any other assumptions that she regard as true, they are first principles. Ayn “A=A” Rand claims that her argument is derived with the law of identity as a first principle. As a tautology the law of identity surely isn’t derived from anything else.

That’s irrelevant. Monarchism in general is not coherent.

Then marxism as a tradition isn’t coherent either. There are a myriad of different views that has been collected under the category of marxism.

But my point is that the contemporary monarchical thought that Paine argued against and the contemporary soviet marxism that Rand argued against was rather coherent. But talking about inverse marxism or inverse monarchism because their views where formed by their opposition is just strange.

I’m not talking about scholarly theories, I”m talking about actual existence.

Actual existence of what? Above you describe Rand as an inverse marxist because her views, according to you, where largely formed from reactions to Marxist concept. I’m trying to emulate the same argument by describing Paine as a reverse monarchist because his views are largely formed from reactions to contemporary European concepts regarding monarchy.

If you are not speaking about scholarly theories. Why speak about philosophical concepts?

What you described sounds a lot like correct interpretation of language.

Ok, but what is the connection to marxism? You were making some kind of comparison.

Yes, they do. However, identifying the ‘things’ that oppress as almost all deriving from the political and economic system is a feature of both Randism and Marxism, and not of most other Enlightenment-era philosophies..

Well both old Locke and Smith sees the organisation of the economy as rather essential for the liberty and happiness of individuals. When Rands views where formed, in the middle of the 20th century, almost all political thinkers where deeply discussing how the economy should be organized.

Ideas are different and inspire each other in both friendship and hostility. I’m still not getting wiser regarding the category of “inverse marxism”.

Well, it’s a good thing I don’t categorize Ayn Rand as a Marxist, then, isn’t it?

No but by some strange reason your categorize her as a “reverse marxist”. In support of “Romantic Heretic” calling her a marxist.