Who is the Ayn Rand of the left?

Oh, I don't know about that.

>It's not George Orwell because he was actually knowledgeable and his work actually has literary value.

Thomas Friedman is a fucking idiot and for some reason his books sell.

Rand was just sharp-witted enough to trick people who wouldn't know better into thinking she was an intellectual. She had no interest in engaging with other people's ideas, past or present, and as a result her work was profoundly irrelevant. She had the whole school of objectivisim contained within her head since her early teens and she didn't change her mind about those opinions her whole life because she was so defensive about them. If you actually read her non-ficiton writings you'll find she's like a combination of a cunty version of Emerson and a stupid version of Descartes. All that considered, I would say she's the libertarian version of an SJW at a Milo Yiannopolis debate.

Trotsky
>Russian Jewish immigrant to North America up his own ass who holds libertarian/ anarchist type views

It was Lenin who did all that stuff. You may as well blame Nietsche for the nazis.

>Marx
>utopian
F- see me after class

Karl Marx

I already do.

criticizing one utopia to support another doesn't stop you from being a utopian

Left deals in reality and case studies.
They don't rely on fiction to try and prove points.

For example, Marx was an economist, historian, and social scientist. Pointing out certain cycles in history, what causes them, what future ones will look like, etc.

He's basically Hari Seldon... except there was no Foundation.

This.

Marx wasn't "criticizing one utopia to support another."
Read a book

Yeah, all of the left does this, and all of the right does that.
You're very wise

Oh I am laffin

Whether or not this is true reduces entirely to your chosen definition of "left" and "right." If by "left" he means "Marxism and related currents" emphasizing the whole historical materialism thing, then yes, if he means social liberalism and things like intersectionality, then no.
He seems more like he's trying to advance the most prudent definition of "left" here, which is otherwise a rather vague term. You won't find feels>reals or internal inconsistency in the Marxists. "Neo-Marxists" and "post-Marxists" say, Marcuse onward, maybe. But not Marxists.
Think: you can't make a claim about "all X" when X isn't well-defined, no?

Murray Bookchin.

But -isms are spooks!

obligatory: philpapers.org/rec/IEKTAO
rand is not a good philosopher but i read some journal by her remaining adherents and it was a weird experience - strange crystallizations of analytic thought

Marx was basically Bill Nye the Science Guy of the 19th century

He didn't know shit about science. People found his journals and he spend hundreds of pages trying to wrap his head around first-year calculus. He was a moron. You can't do science without calculus

I'm unironically a STEMlord and even I find this post vacuous

None of them were objective scientists though. They had an emotional attachment to revolution and class struggle that clouded everything they wrote. Economics in general is a "social science" i.e. not a real science.

>Left deals in reality and case studies.
pfft

>Marx was basically Bill Nye the Science Guy of the 19th century

Marx was an insightful social critic. Bill Nye is not. Nye doesn't come up with anything, he just explains other people's ideas. No, Marx wasn't a scientist, and it was mistake to try and claim that his theories were scientific in the same sense as the natural sciences, but this was a popular impulse at the time he was writing.

>From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs
Woah that's some solid, astounding piece of aphoristic discourse! Viva la revolución!

>None of them were objective scientists though. They had an emotional attachment to revolution and class struggle that clouded everything they wrote.
I'd love to know how you plan to establish that.
>Economics in general is a "social science" i.e. not a real science.
>No, Marx wasn't a scientist, and it was mistake to try and claim that his theories were scientific in the same sense as the natural sciences, but this was a popular impulse at the time he was writing.
The physical sciences of the 19th century were inductive. By that standard, Marx's approach was scientific, although not by the modern one. But this judgement can hardly be called a mistake. Popper's falsifiability criterion is very much a 20th century invention, and it still fails to apply to any formulation of social sciences or economics in general (outside of several drastically narrowed schools/subfields such as behaviorism,) not just Marxism. But we don't claim that things falling beyond its scope (literary criticism, social sciences) are inherently unknowable or bullshit, it's merely an exceptional standard of rigor that we can apply to certain areas of knowledge to achieve better results.

Wow, you sure showed us by quoting Critique of the Gotha Program's statements regarding post-scarcity society.
>In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

Marxism is neither science or philosophy; it's a programme or approach based on a very specific set of beliefs

>But we don't claim that things falling beyond its scope (literary criticism, social sciences) are inherently unknowable or bullshit

Sure we do.

>if I keep saying disparaging things they must be true and make me correct

Did you forget to put an argument in this post? Cuz I don't see one.

This isn't

>can't see the criticism
Wew

Jack London.

John Rawls

Ursula K LeGuin?
Kim Stanley Robinson?

Ursula Le Guin

You guys are so stupid

Vonnegut

Being this butt hurt you have to get a job and work on yourself to have value.

Wew lad, OP, just kill yourself now.

>Wew lad
newfag get out reeeeeeeeeeee

Is there an actual argument against objectivism that isn't MUH FEEEEELS

Yes.

Feelings matter too though unless you're some autist nobody likes.

Some people genuinely do not wish to act in the pursuit of life or the good. Some people want to die or be evil.

The existence of them cause the theory to be non-universal, therefore it needs revision.

Also miniarchism. Government is contradictory to her philosophy.

Besides that Rand was pretty right desu.

Michael Moore.

Zizek, obviously.
Why do you think he's so infatuated with Ayn Rand? He knows that she stands in the absolute opposite of everything he stands for.

>his work actually has literary value.
NOPE

>I watched every Jordan Peterson video on Jewtube.Read Gulag Archipelagi gaizz.

Even if Marx somehow did whatever you claim he did,you should actually read him for that reason alone.But you won't.Just like 99% of meme internet thinkers that rant on about cultural marxism.Marx was wrong on so many things but you couldn't even bring up ONE because you enjoy eating up propaganda instead of making the time to READ.

Just kys homie.

>all libertarians are influenced by Rand meme

You fucking idiot, Peter Thiel is a Stanford philosophy major, Christian and gay.

yo put spaces between sentences

...

most formulations of ethics stand against most or all of its standards

Literally no arguments

>Marx was wrong on so many things
Yeah? Like what lmao