tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post764646224270685232..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: Objectivism & Politics, Part 22Daniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-33990278559333707322009-08-28T18:52:06.511-07:002009-08-28T18:52:06.511-07:00Jay,
There are, of course, similarities between b...Jay,<br /><br />There are, of course, similarities between business and military leadership; and if we concentrated merely on the similarities, you could say with Wells that leadership styles at the top are pretty similar. But there are at least a few important differences, the most important of which is that, in the military, the stakes aren't merely profit and loss, but life and death. To be a military leader, one must be willing to face death coldly and deliberately, without losing one's head; and there aren't actually a large body of people, particularly in a wealthy society, who have that degree of courage. Moreover, military organizations require a much higher level of obedience and discipline than is necessary in business. If an employee doesn't like his boss, he can quit and move elsewhere. But if a soldier doesn't like his commanding officers, his options are much more limitted. Military organizations stress authority and hiearchy far more than business organizations. In business, there is much greater range for self-interested individualism. But in the military, one requires a more honor-based, group orientated morality, with a heavy stress on the importance of following orders from one's superiors.<br /><br />All these factors contribute and demand a contrasting style of leadership. They demand someone who is tough, courageous, respectful of military traditions and the code of honor of the soldier, and who sympathizes with that particularly set of militaristic sentiments required of men who must risk their lives on a field of battle under the horrible conditions of combat. These are characteristics which, in most cases, can only be developed by having a career in the military. They are not, in any case, likely to developed in a career in business, which does not rely so heavily (if it relies at all) on courage, authoritarianism, and militaristic sentiments.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-35356662682499352572009-08-26T13:00:33.187-07:002009-08-26T13:00:33.187-07:00Greg,
Love the definition of socialism as narciss...Greg,<br /><br />Love the definition of socialism as narcissistic humanitarianism.<br /><br />Just out of curiosity - in what ways do you believe military leadership differs from business leadership?JayCrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15565955869872328326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-71922319990274672942009-08-24T22:51:21.396-07:002009-08-24T22:51:21.396-07:00Michael,
I think the insurgency and guerilla warf...Michael,<br /><br />I think the insurgency and guerilla warfare aspect, though true up to a point, is overplayed. The most important aspect in Vietnam and for the Brits in the American Revolution was the quality (or rather lack of quality) of the leadership. Normally, leadership in England was selected on the basis of aristocratic connections and court sycophancy. Under such leadership, anyone with any great competence was seen as a threat to leadership and kept out. Only when England was led by a great leader did it become invincible, as it was under Marlborough and the Elder Pitt. These leaders (particularly Pitt) had a talent for promoting only the most qualified generals and admirals. Lord North had no such talent and the British armies were, in key situations, incompetently led. Be assured, if the British in America had been led by a general with the chops of a James Wolfe or a Wellington, the American rebels would probably not have won the war. <br /><br />Leadership is always of decisive importance, and military leadership is different from business leadership and calls on different qualities. The two best generals of civil war, Grant and Sherman, were failures in business.<br /><br />I agree that democratic socialism, or what I would call narcistic humanitarianism, depletes the will to fight. But I would add that capitalist elites have a particularly poor record in this area. More often than not, they have tried to cater to it, to make money out of it, to buy it off (just as they have with the related counter-culture movement). <br /><br />If Schumpeter were alive today, I think he would point to the eagerness of American capitalists to do business with China as an example of the inability of the business class to look after its long-run interest. There are instances when the defense of a nation should take precedence over short-term business interests. But not enough businessmen seem to understand this.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-70382128237380205762009-08-24T05:50:36.817-07:002009-08-24T05:50:36.817-07:00Greg,
I don't know much about the Korean War...Greg, <br /><br />I don't know much about the Korean War, except that Alan Alda was in it and it ran for, like, ten seasons. But as far as Vietnam and Iraq II are concerned, I would say our difficulties were a result of fighting an indigenous population that resorted to insurgency and guerrilla warfare. The British encountered the same problems when trying to hang on to their American colonies. I don't think a capitalist combination instinct had much to do with it. The 18th century Brits and the American rebels were equally capitalistic, but the rebels "fought dirty" and won. <br /><br />Andrew, <br /><br />I think I get Schumpeter's point, but my view is that the performance of capitalist America in WWII showed that the capitalist bourgeoisie are perfectly capable of standing up to tyranny. Schumpeter seems to think that only demagogues who exert a mystical fascination on the populace can wage war. I would say that such demagogues are more likely to start wars, but less likely to win them. <br /><br />What does seem to deplete the will to fight is what is now called "democratic socialism." I don't know just why this is, but it may have something to do with Charles Murray's critique of modern Europe: <br /><br />http://snipurl.com/qtoskMichael Prescotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12963295565160636175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-78988793872446848932009-08-24T02:00:52.276-07:002009-08-24T02:00:52.276-07:00Micheal- I think you may misinterpret Schumpeters ...Micheal- I think you may misinterpret Schumpeters comment.<br /><br />"Schumpeter's argument seems way off-base to me. Maybe ten years later, in the midst of WWII, he would have reconsidered when he saw the industrial and organizational genius of capitalism unleashed against the Axis powers, with devastating results."<br /><br />I dont believe Schumpeter would have argued that Capitalism itself as an economic system was not capable of creating the economic base required to wage war. But that the individual actors who dominate in the Capitalist economy are not suited to being 'warrior leaders' who are required to maximize such a power into a machine of geo-political domination. <br /><br />Hitler was a cunning demagogue, not an entrepreneur. <br /><br />I think the point is that if our ruling class as an aggregate begins to become dominated by combination-instinct residue, we may forgo making adequate efforts in being cunning in securing our preservation. <br /><br />This seems reasonable to me.Andrewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-41370835549644261482009-08-23T19:32:12.767-07:002009-08-23T19:32:12.767-07:00Michael: "Capitalist countries can be quite g...Michael: "Capitalist countries can be quite good at waging war. As I recall, the capitalist West did okay versus Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, imperial Japan, communist Russia, etc."<br /><br />While it's quite true that the capitalist West (or, actually, capitalist America) did quite well against Japan and Germany, elsewhere they have not done so well. The Korean War ended in a cease fire agreement, a stalemate more than an outright victory. Following the Bay of Pigs disaster, America wound up losing against Vietnam. America did win Iraq War 1, but that only involved retaking Kuwait. When later on we decided to remove Saddam, things have proved more difficult, and the verdict is still out as to whether that war (along with the Afghan conflict, now escalating) is won.<br /><br />As to whether we did okay against communist Russia—well, that conflict is not altogether ended, as the military and KGB elite that runs Russia still regards America as the enemy and, through its alliance with China, still poses a serious threat to us. And while the axis of dictatorships that Putin is forming as a coalition against America may not be capable of fully conquering the U.S. and liquidating its population, it could seriously compromise, if not destroy, our way of life.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-53037998051847041002009-08-23T11:32:54.801-07:002009-08-23T11:32:54.801-07:00Greg wrote: "And given the extensive division...Greg wrote: <i>"And given the extensive division of labor in an advanced industrial society ..."</i><br><br>The extensive division of labor is the answer. It's a volunteer military that uses the businessman's technology to fight wars, instead of needing to conscript every male inhabitant of the society (including businessmen). The easiest explanation for why businessmen don't concern themselves with defense is that the government does it for them -- just like the cops down the block or the security guard in the lobby. Rand was not an anarchist. She supported the military as a proper function of government. And that is the answer to why businessmen don't defend themselves.Anon69noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-3692743275399778102009-08-22T15:43:15.821-07:002009-08-22T15:43:15.821-07:00Capitalist countries can be quite good at waging w...Capitalist countries can be quite good at waging war. As I recall, the capitalist West did okay versus Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, imperial Japan, communist Russia, etc.<br /><br />A case could be made that the individualism fostered by capitalism makes for a more effective fighting force, by encouraging soldiers to think for themselves rather than blindly following orders. <br /><br />Schumpeter's argument seems way off-base to me. Maybe ten years later, in the midst of WWII, he would have reconsidered when he saw the industrial and organizational genius of capitalism unleashed against the Axis powers, with devastating results.Michael Prescotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12963295565160636175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-24552819091905085882009-08-21T20:55:44.533-07:002009-08-21T20:55:44.533-07:00Greg wrote: and we also find her formulating a the...Greg wrote: <i>and we also find her formulating a theory to explain why businessmen failed to adequately defend themselves: the “sanction of the victim,” wherein the victim (i.e., the businessman) accepts the morality of his enemies (i.e., altruism) and hence deprives himself of the moral high ground.</i><br /><br />Primarily, no. The businessman can't deprive himself of the moral high ground because he never had one to stand on. This is what Rand attempted to provide. She literally rested the destiny of mankind on the shoulders of those who are, traditionally, just trying to make a buck, and gave them the moral authorization to "shrug" if it ever comes down to that.Cavewighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00898771057884872416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-30764036909679479142009-08-21T17:26:37.086-07:002009-08-21T17:26:37.086-07:00I'm sure the VOC, John Company, and others wou...I'm sure the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company" rel="nofollow">VOC</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_East_India_Company" rel="nofollow">John Company</a>, and others would beg to differ. While I'm pretty sure Rand's view of Humanitarians doesn't coincide with the facts, neither does Greg Nyquest's post here.<br /><br />My observation is organizations from the bottom use very different types of leadership styles. However, at the top of a large organization leadership styles are very similar. You can swap out a Ford Executive for a Secretary of Defense and vice versa, But a straw boss and a sergeant are doing very different jobs.Wellsnoreply@blogger.com