Objectivist Newsletter, Volume 2, 1963 [2] 1135812845

Table of contents :
JANUARY, 1963
FEBRUARY
MARCH,
APRIL 1963
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUGUST,
SEPTEMBER,
OCTOBER
NOVEMBER
DECEMBER,1963

Citation preview

The Monument Builders (from page 55) while its emperors were building coliseu.ms: Louis X~V of France taxed his people into a state of mdlgence, while he built the palace of Versailles, f~)f his co.n~emporary mona!chs to envy and for modern tounsts to. VI~!t. The m,~rbie-llned Moscow subway, built by the unpal? volunt.eer labor of Russian workers, including women, IS a public monume?t, and so is the Czarist-like lUxury of the champagne and cavI.ar receptions at the ~ovi~t embass.ies, which is neede~-whlle the people stand mime for m~dequ~te ,~ood ratIOns-to "maintain the prestige of the Soviet Umon. . The great distinction of the United States. of Am~nca, up to the last few decades, was the modesty of ItS. public monuments. Such monuments as did exist were genyme: they were not erected for "prestige," but were functional structures that had housed events of great historical importance. If you have seen the austere simplicity of Independence Hall, you have seen the difference between authentic grandeur and the pyramids of "public-spirited" prestige-s~ekers. In America, human effort and matenal res~urces .were not expropriated for public monuments and public prC!Jec~s~ but were spent on the progress of the privat~, personal, mdl':'ldu~1 well-being of individual citizens. Amenca's greatness hes m the fact that her actual monuments are not public. The skyline of New York is a monument of a splendor that no pyramids or palaces will eve~ equal or. approach. But America's skyscrapers were not b~.l1lt by public funds. ~C!r ~or a public purpose: they were bUIlt by the energy, Imttatlve and wealth of private individuals for personal profit. And, instead of impoverishi~g the peopl~,. these skyscrapers, as they rose higher and higher, ~ept r.alSlng the people s standard of living-including the mhabltants ~f the slums, 'Yho lead a life of lUxury compared t? the ~If~ of an ancient Egyptian slave or of a modern Soviet Soclailst work:r. Such is the difference-both in theory and practice-between capitalism and socialism. . It is impossible to compute the human suffenng, deg!adation, deprivation and horror that went to pay for a. smgle, much-touted skyscraper of Moscow, or for the Sov~et factories or mines or dams, or for any part of their lootand-blood-supported "industriali~ation." ~hat 'Ye. do know, however is that forty-five years IS a long time: It IS the span of two generations; we do know that, in the n~me of a pr?mised abundance, two generations of human bemgs have lIve~ and died in subhuman poverty; and we do know that .tod~y s advocates of socialism are not deterred by a fact of this kmd. Whatever motive they might assert, benevolence is one they have long since lost the right to claim.. . The ideology of socialization (in a neo-fasclst fo~m) IS now floating, by default, through the vacuum of our mtellectual and cultural atmosphere. Observe how often we are asked for undefined "sacrifices" to unspecified purposes. Observe how often the present administration is invoking "the public interest." Observe what prominence the issue of internation~1 "prestige" has suddenly acquired and what grotesquely SUIcidal policies are justified by references to ma~t~rs of "prestige." Observe that during the rec.en.t Cuban cnsls-when the factual issue concerned nuclear miSSiles and nuclear war-our diplomats and commentators found it proper seri?usly to weigh such things as the "prestige,". t~e persona.1 feelings and the "face-saving" of the sundry SOCialist rulers mvolved. There is no difference between the principles, policies and practical results of socialism-a!ld those of any hi.storical or prehistorical tyranny. Socialism IS merely.demo~ratlc absolute monarchy-that is, a system of absolutism without a fixed head, open to seizure of power by all comers, by any ruthless climber, opportunist, adventurer, demagogue or thug. When you consider socialism, d~ not fool yo.urseJf about its nature. Remember that there IS no such dichotomy as "human rights" versus "property rights." No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the "right" to "redistribute" the

56

wealth produced by others is claiming the "right" to treat . human beings as chattel. When you consider the global devas~a~lOn perp~tr~ted by socialism the sea of blood and the mlillons of Victims, remember that they were sacrificed, not for "the gOO? of m~n­ kind" nor for any "noble ideal," but fo~ the fest~nn~ vamty of some scared brute or some pretentious medlocnty who craved a mantle of unearned "greatness':-and ~hat the monument to socialism is a pyramid of pubhc factone~, public theaters and public parks, erected on a founda~lOn of human corpses, with the figure ~f th~ ruler pos~~nng. o~ top, beating his chest an~ screammg his plea for prestige to the starless void above him.

The Roosevelt Myth (from page 54) Roosevelt followed their inspiration not only in ~is domestic policies, but also in his foreign policy: by resortmg to war in order to "solve" his internal problems. He had found a solution to the depression in the spending of vast sums for National Defense. . . . "I say to you fathers and moth~rs and I Will ~ay It ag~m and again and again. Your boys Will not be sent l!ltO foreign wars." This was Roosevelt's promise to the Amencan people in 1940. In 1941 states Flynn, he "exposed our fleet and our soldiers in Haw~ii and the Philippine Islands to an attack which he knowingly invited." It was Roosevelt-states the myth-who led us through a great war for democracy and freedom, and who saved the civilization of Europe. . , Eleven billion dollars ·of Amencan taxpayers money was given to Russia during the war, in the form of Lend-Leasedollars whose consequences, I might add, we can now see ninety miles from our shores. In secret agree~eJ?ts betwe.en Roosevelt and Stalin, sixteen European and ASiatic count~les and over 725 million people were surrendered to RUSSian tyranny. .' . . In his own economic conVictIOns, John T. Flynn IS n~t a!l advocate of laissez-faire capitalism; althoug~ he does not mdlcate his views clearly, he seems to sanctIOn some f~rm of mixed economy. But his ruth.lessly factual presentatIOn of the events of the New Deal penod, and of the long-and-sh