Oscar Wilde lays the smack down on Ayn Rand and FOC

[recursivelyenumerable]

[T]he recognition of private property has really harmed Individualism, and obscured it, by confusing a man with what he possesses. It has led Individualism entirely astray. It has made gain not growth its aim. So that man thought that the important thing was to have, and did not know that the important thing is to be. The true perfection of man lies not in what man has, but in what man is. Private property has crushed true Individualism, and set up an Individualism that is false. It has debarred one part of the community from being individual by starving them. It has debarred the other part of the community from being individual by putting them on the wrong road and encumbering them.... The industry necessary for the making of money is also very demoralising. In a community like ours, where property confers immense distinction, social position, honour, respect, titles, and other pleasant things of the kind, man, being naturally ambitious, makes it his aim to accumulate this property, and goes on wearily and tediously accumulating it long after he has got far more than he wants, or can use, or enjoy, or perhaps even know of. Man will kill himself by overwork in order to secure property, and really, considering the enormous advantages that property brings, one is hardly surprised. One's regret is that society should be constructed on such a basis that man has been forced into a groove in which he cannot freely develop what is wonderful, and fascinating, and delightful in him in which, in fact, he misses the true pleasure and joy of living.

[Rman]

I think I'm going to go blind reading that.

[Eric P]

so true

[Don Flamenco]

he misses the true pleasure and joy of living.

and the true pleasure and joy of living can only be found in a socialist society! How convenient!

[Laramie]

I can't read it either but it's not hard to believe that somebody famous could highlight the faults in libertarianism.

[FlameOfCallandor]

http://mises.org/story/2748
The Confused Socialism of Oscar Wilde

Like many intellectuals at the turn of the 19th century, Oscar Wilde was both interested in the problems of society and a proponent of socialism.

Though Wilde was more concerned with criticizing Victorian society via his satirical works than puzzling over the problems of social organization, he did briefly examine social philosophy in his little-known essay, The Soul of Man Under Socialism.

Wilde's approach is hardly praxeological — in fact, he assays the problem of socialism from the perspective of an artist rather than an economist or philosopher — but nevertheless, his essay is instructive, and has much to teach about both the confusion of the intellectuals vis à vis socialism, and, ironically enough, about the problems of state power in general.

Wilde approaches the problem of the organization of society with his characteristic wit and charm. Any admirer of his canonical works will recognize in The Soul of Man Under Socialism his penetrating insight as well as his talent for criticism. What makes Wilde's essay so remarkable is that, even as he errs regarding his arguments, upon closer examination one observes that he in fact possesses deep insights that might remain hidden to the casual reader.

Wilde's discussion runs the typical socialist-intellectual gamut as far as the "benefits" of socialism are concerned. He bypasses all problems of production, assumes that under socialism machines will perform every (unpleasant) type of labor, and claims that socialism will bring about generally utopian conditions for all mankind. There are more than a few economic fallacies either stated or implied in his essay.

It is not economic problems, though, but problems of the artist, that are the central focus of Wilde's essay. According to Wilde, the great end of socialism is to establish "Individualism," by which Wilde means every man's ability to pursue his own artistic goals without having to submit to the "Tyranny of want."[1]

This variety of argument — that submission to a collective will results in individualism — is typical both of Wilde's essay and of socialist thinkers in general, and reminds us of the talent for paradox for which Wilde is so well remembered. Nevertheless, Wilde's claim warrants additional scrutiny.

Wilde's contention that socialism will lead to individualism is based upon the understanding that the socialist state will not interfere with the lives of its citizens: in Wilde's vision of socialism, men will be free to pursue their own artistic goals without fear of any sort of coercion, and will thus reach the utmost heights of artistic self-expression. Wilde fails to realize that under the socialist state, the artist is only at liberty to produce that which the state deems appropriate.

In a very real sense, the legitimacy of any state depends upon its ability to influence intellectual currents, and one of the surest methods of affecting this influence is through the manipulation of the artist. As Mises pointed out, "No censor, no emperor, no pope, has ever possessed the power to suppress intellectual freedom which would be possessed by a socialist community."[2]

We may observe the socialist suppression of the artist historically — in Communist China, for instance — but even without examples it is apparent, when one reflects on the nature of the socialist state, that censorship is inevitable. "There can be no freedom in art and literature where the government determines who shall create them," declares Mises,[3] reminding us that what is produced by the printing press will ultimately be decided by those who own and control it — in the case of socialism, the state planners.

Also, Wilde's assertion that after the transformation of society into a socialist state the creative faculties of the artist would be awakened seems (at best) a rather dubious claim. "Literature is not conformism, but dissent," as Mises observed.[4]

It is not capitulation to the status quo that allows for the development of the artistic impulses, but rather rebellion against the status quo. How could artistic dissent be possible in a society where (by definition) the central planners dictate the occupations of the citizens, and direct as many actions as possible towards the accomplishment of their own goals? It quite simply could not. Although Wilde's own literary career was a veritable litany of dissent, this fundamental insight remained curiously lost to him.

In addition to confusions, self-contradictions are also commonplace in Wilde's argument, such as the following: "It is immoral to use private property in order to alleviate the horrible evils that result from the institution of private property. It is both immoral and unfair."[5]

Passing over the vague claim regarding the "evils" of private property, it is worth noting that Wilde appears to be defending property against those who would make noninstitutional attacks against it. Nevertheless, Wilde's solution to the violations of private property is not to abolish those violations, but rather to abolish property itself! To claim that in order to eliminate the "evils" presented by private property, one must commit the ultimate act of "immoral[ity] and unfair[ness]" — the institutional violation of all property-owning individuals in society — seems absurd, by Wilde's own logic.

Another example of this confused attempt to justify socialism derives from Wilde's definition of selfishness, a trait to which Wilde attributes most social problems, and one which he hopes to eliminate from society altogether. Selfishness, says Wilde, "is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live."[6]

In society, claims Wilde, this type of selfishness enables certain individuals to dominate the lives of others, through the employment of various shades of coercion. Wilde correctly asserts that to ground society on the desire of the few to coerce the many is unjustifiable. Yet this hardly squares with his desire to forcibly abolish private property for all persons in society by establishing socialism. To coerce another individual into giving up his property for the sake of "society" (as must be the case in the socialist state) would be profoundly anti-individualistic, let alone coercing all individuals within society to live as the socialist planners deem fit. Such an act would be, according to Wilde's own definition, the ultimate act of selfishness, and thus this particular line of reasoning is also self-contradictory.

Confusions and contradictions aside however, Wilde's legendary wit and discernment do manage to shine through brilliantly in his attacks on government authority. Despite the fact that he thought the advent of socialism would lead to a utopian state of personal liberty, he still manages to perceive with all the force of a great satirist the problems of state power.[7]

Wilde displays a distrust of state power that would rival any modern-day libertarian. Consider this statement: "if governments are armed with economic power as they are now with political power: if, in a word, we are to have Industrial Tyrannies, then the last state of man will be worse than the first."[8]

Again, Wilde's confusion is the key to understanding this statement and extracting from it the considerable truth it contains. Wilde fails to grasp that socialism by definition requires the transfer of economic power from the individual to the collective, i.e., the state. And yet Wilde's insight here is tremendous: if he understood socialism as it is, then by comparing primitive man to the authoritarian state, he would in many respects be agreeing with Mises's thesis that establishing socialism would be tantamount to the abolition of society.

In response to the claim that the state must be authoritarian, Wilde replies, "It is to be regretted that a portion of our community should be practically in slavery, but to propose to solve the problem by enslaving the entire community is childish."[9]

This witty remark once again highlights the confusion in Wilde's argument — he clearly understood that authoritarianism is a form of slavery, but he could not, for whatever reason, realize that the socialist state epitomizes problems of authoritarianism and institutionalizes them. The central confusion appears to arise not from Wilde's (reasonable) ends, but rather, his (contradictory) means: for example, for Wilde to pursue the goal of impoverishment is certainly noble in some sense, but to do so through manipulating certain powers of the state — which he admits only exacerbate the problem — is, to use Wilde's own words, simply childish.

Wilde's most profound insight, however, arrives as he realizes that it is not certain varieties of state power that are harmful, but rather the authority of the state as such:

All modes of government are failures. Despotism is unjust to everybody, including the despot, who was probably made for better things. Oligarchies are unjust to the many, and ochlocracies are unjust to the few. High hopes were once formed of democracy; but democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people. It has been found out…. The form of government that is most suitable to [man] is no government at all … all authority is equally bad.[10]
After examining these remarks it appears that Wilde was perhaps far more an opponent of socialism than he was its champion, and although he was no anarchocapitalist, Wilde clearly understands the problems inherent in any system of coercive power. Even though he is incorrect to equate socialism with the abolition of the modern state, his great passion for truth allowed him to understand that, not only is there no state-mandated panacea for the ills of society, but that it is, in fact, the very exercise of coercive power in the first place that causes many of society's ills.

Wilde would have agreed with the Austrians that only a society based upon voluntarily agreements and mutual exchange can ensure lasting peace and prosperity. One cannot help but wonder what a conversation between Oscar Wilde and Murray Rothbard would have been like.

It is not that Wilde was a poorly informed socialist activist, but rather that he was — in an appropriately ironic and cynical sense — the consummate socialist intellectual.

Wilde's confused approach to socialism serves to reminds us that socialism is a fundamentally confused and contradictory ideology (at best) seeking liberal ends through conservative means — attempting to end impoverishment, for instance, via the mandate of the state.

It is lamentable that such a great writer should have been misled by the socialist zeitgeist of his day; fortunately however, Wilde — unlike many of his contemporaries — did manage to retain some of the great insights of the liberal tradition, albeit in a rather confused manner. In terms of their confusion and foolish pride, intellectuals before and since Mises's demolition of the socialist system seem to have taken their cues from Wilde, though unfortunately with far less wit or insight.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Wilde's discussion runs the typical socialist-intellectual gamut as far as the "benefits" of socialism are concerned. He bypasses all problems of production, assumes that under socialism machines will perform every (unpleasant) type of labor, and claims that socialism will bring about generally utopian conditions for all mankind. There are more than a few economic fallacies either stated or implied in his essay.

What happened to the great soviet socialist state? Wilde=idiot confirmed

[BobbyRobby]

socialism turns into people voting on and taking the possessions of others.  greed will never vanish.  

Even if it was possible, I'm not sure I would want people to become content.  desire for more drives the creation of most of man's greatest creations.

[recursivelyenumerable]

I wish I could just respond with tl;dr, but honesty compels me to admit to my lasting shame that I read your mises.org piece in its entirety.  None of it addresses the point made in the passage I initially quoted.

[FlameOfCallandor]

In your original post Wilde says "recognition of private property has really harmed Individualism" And yet he champions for a system of government where all citizens are not treated like people but numbers, quotas and in some extreme cases cattle. How is that for individualism?

[recursivelyenumerable]

where in the passage I quoted does he advocate for any system of government

[FlameOfCallandor]

where in the passage I quoted does he advocate for any system of government

The Soul of Man under Socialism

[recursivelyenumerable]

also what's wrong with treating people like numbers?  I treat numbers with great respect.

[recursivelyenumerable]

 

[FlameOfCallandor]

also what's wrong with treating people like numbers?  I treat numbers with great respect.

[Phoenix Dark]

you both are dummies. socialism doesn't work, end of story. and FoC am distinguished mentally-challenged

[BobbyRobby]

nothing wrong with treating people like numbers.  If I was Spider-Man and had the option of saving one person or twenty, I'd save the twenty.  That being said, I don't want the government treating people like numbers.  they succumb to the whims of the populace, and people who strive to be in a position where they have control over others tend to be evil.

[Laramie]

nothing wrong with treating people like numbers.  If I was Spider-Man and had the option of saving one person or twenty, I'd save the twenty.  That being said, I don't want the government treating people like numbers.  they succumb to the whims of the populace, and people who strive to be in a position where they have control over others tend to be evil.

False, Spiderman saved all 21.  The trash barge below him was the free hand of the market.

[Flannel Boy]

Randroids are not the only people who recognize property rights.

[T]he recognition of private property has really harmed Individualism, and obscured it, by confusing a man with what he possesses.

This is silly. If that were the case, Paris Hilton would be well respected; instead she's nearly universally despised. In societies that do recognize private property, we don't simply confuse a person with the things he or she posses. Things like intellect, creativity, and character are still important. As are, for that matter, many superficial things!

We might as well say a society that recognizes free speech confuses a person with the things he says. Or that a society that recognizes freedom of political affiliation confuses the man for his affiliation. These things, along with one's wealth, help comprise the the person, but not exclusively. Other things matter.

Yes the property that a person holds affects the image we have of him or her, but this likely occurred in societies that had no property rights at all. The hunter with the sharpest spears and tools, and best fur clothing was likely looked at differently too.

The rest of the quotation is fine for encouraging people to strive for non-materialistic goals. But these goals can still be attained in a society that recognizes private property. An elimination of private property is neither necessary nor sufficient for attaining such goals. That it is not necessary is made evident by the creative, scientific, and humanitarian works that have emerged in free economies. That it is not sufficient is made evident by all the individuals that have not achieved anything at all in communistic countries.

AND
Unless you add some kind of explanation or commentary, don't post long quotes. That is annoying!

[TVC15]

Randroids are not the only people who recognize property rights.

[T]he recognition of private property has really harmed Individualism, and obscured it, by confusing a man with what he possesses.

This is silly. If that were the case, Paris Hilton would be well respected; instead she's nearly universally despised. In societies that do recognize private property, we don't simply confuse a person with the things he or she posses. Things like intellect, creativity, and character are still important. As are, for that matter, many superficial things!

But then again, private property is the only reason anyone even knows who Paris Hilton is.

[Flannel Boy]

But then again, private property is the only reason anyone even knows who Paris Hilton is.

Her celebrity was caused by her wealth, but her value as a person is not reduced to her wealth. Otherwise she wouldn't be looked down upon like a leper. So, again, Wilde is wrong! We don't "confuse a man with what he posses."

[recursivelyenumerable]

The rest of the quotation is fine for encouraging people to strive for non-materialistic goals. But these goals can still be attained in a society that recognizes private property.  An elimination of private property is neither necessary nor sufficient for attaining such goals.

the smackdown is against libertard fetishization of property.  I don't necessarily advocate its abolition myself.

[TVC15]

But then again, private property is the only reason anyone even knows who Paris Hilton is.

Her celebrity was caused by her wealth, but her value as a person is not reduced to her wealth. Otherwise she wouldn't be looked down upon like a leper. So, again, Wilde is wrong! We don't "confuse a man with what he posses."

I see what you're saying, but I disagree.  Paris Hilton is only a publicly visible person because of her.  She is looked down upon because she is basically the stereotype of a rich heiress.  She was defined in the public eye by her possessions and status.  She is the product of "gain, not growth."

[Van Cruncheon]

"property rights" are just territorial pissing and growling. if we're going to submit to our basic urges, we might as well legalize rape and murder!*

spoiler (click to show/hide)

* WAT

[close]

[Flannel Boy]

I see what you're saying, but I disagree.  Paris Hilton is only a publicly visible person because of her.  She is looked down upon because she is basically the stereotype of a rich heiress.  She was defined in the public eye by her possessions and status.  She is the product of "gain, not growth."

She is also looked down upon because of her perceived low intelligence, superficiality, and sluttiness. She would not have attained her fame and low standing through wealth alone.

[recursivelyenumerable]

well if there's no god there's no reason not to rape and murder anyway

[Flannel Boy]

"property rights" are just territorial pissing and growling. if we're going to submit to our basic urges, we might as well legalize rape and murder!*

spoiler (click to show/hide)

* WAT

[close]

WAT!

well if there's no god there's no reason not to rape and murder anyway

WATx2

Are you people just trollin'?

[TVC15]

I see what you're saying, but I disagree.  Paris Hilton is only a publicly visible person because of her.  She is looked down upon because she is basically the stereotype of a rich heiress.  She was defined in the public eye by her possessions and status.  She is the product of "gain, not growth."

She is also looked down upon because of her perceived low intelligence, superficiality, and sluttiness. She would not have attained her fame and low standing through wealth alone.

I'm actually not sure what fame has to do with individualism.  I kinda think Paris Hilton is a poor example for this because she's a horrible mutant that's developed and grown up in a way that only a teensy handful of people ever will ever get to partake in.  An extreme.

[Flannel Boy]

I'm actually not sure what fame has to do with individualism.  I kinda think Paris Hilton is a poor example for this because she's a horrible mutant that's developed and grown up in a way that only a teensy handful of people ever will ever get to partake in.  An extreme.

I used her as an example because she is well known and to demonstrate clearly that people are not defined by their property alone. A non-famous wealthy person who suffered from the same kinds of defects as Paris would also be looked down upon. He or she would also be defined by those flaws. This all seems obvious, like I'm attacking some sort of strawman, but it's Wilde's overstatement. Something you'd see from the Frankfurt school. The flipside of lolibertarianism 

[TVC15]

I'm actually not sure what fame has to do with individualism.  I kinda think Paris Hilton is a poor example for this because she's a horrible mutant that's developed and grown up in a way that only a teensy handful of people ever will ever get to partake in.  An extreme.

I used her as an example because she is well known and to demonstrate clearly that people are not defined by their property alone. A non-famous wealthy person who suffered from the same kinds of defects as Paris would also be looked down upon. He or she would also be defined by those flaws. This all seems obvious, like I'm attacking some sort of strawman, but it's Wilde's overstatement. Something you'd see from the Frankfurt school. The flipside of lolibertarianism 

While I don't agree with Wilde's piece (Individualism and socialism go together?  Huh?), I think you have to take the perceived overstatement while recognizing what Wilde was.  He was a writer and an aesthete and a wit, and flowery language was his forte, so overstatements are part of his very trade.  I think he was just out of his field when he wrote this.

[Flannel Boy]

Maybe you should keep your socialist dreams to yourself.

I think only me and Borys know what it's like to have lived in a socialist state.

Because of the state coercion involved, some would claim that you didn't actually live in a socialist society. Personally, I don't see how a socialist society is possible without extensive coercion. Though, every state will have some level of coercion. Hell I don't even see anarchist societies (be they anarcho-capitalist or socialist) functioning without extensive coercion.  

While I don't agree with Wilde's piece (Individualism and socialism go together?  Huh?), I think you have to take the perceived overstatement while recognizing what Wilde was.  He was a writer and an aesthete and a wit, and flowery language was his forte, so overstatements are part of his very trade.  I think he was just out of his field when he wrote this.

I am aware of this, but this style also permeates much of continental philosophy. This allows for a moving target. One can argue for something extreme, and then when called out on this extremism, one can move to a more moderate position.

[TVC15]

Maybe you should keep your socialist dreams to yourself.

I think only me and Borys know what it's like to have lived in a socialist state.

Because of the state coercion involved, some would claim that you didn't actually live in a socialist society. Personally, I don't see how a socialist society is possible without extensive coercion. Though, every state will have some level of coercion. Hell I don't even see anarchist societies (be they anarcho-capitalist or socialist) functioning without extensive coercion. 

While I don't agree with Wilde's piece (Individualism and socialism go together?  Huh?), I think you have to take the perceived overstatement while recognizing what Wilde was.  He was a writer and an aesthete and a wit, and flowery language was his forte, so overstatements are part of his very trade.  I think he was just out of his field when he wrote this.

I am aware of this, but this style also permeates much of continental philosophy. This allows for a moving target. One can argue for something extreme, and then when called out on this extremism, one can move to a more moderate position.

I think Wilde being out of his depth applies here.  This *is* the only major political piece he wrote, aside from a handful of letters.

[ToxicAdam]

We exist to create. We are defined by how those around us appreciate what we create.

To just be a consumer your entire life, a quiet observer ... is not really living at all.

 

[recursivelyenumerable]

sounds pretty socialist/Frankfurt School to me!

[Madrun Badrun]

You guys seem to be taking the quote out of it's historical context.  "Confusing a man with what he possesses" does sound like high class England at the time.  Wasn't it possible to buy an officer rank in the English Navy up until WW1 (maybe it was Crimean War or Boar, Boogie?)  I don't think you can apply this to the rest of society, even though thats what Wilde was saying.     

[TVC15]

mmmm, I want to be a sociologist.  How hard is that?  What are the job prospects?

[TVC15]

I think I'd do well in sociology.  What sociology needs today is a borderline psychotic homosexual Doctor Who fanboy.

[Madrun Badrun]

I think I'd do well in sociology.  What sociology needs today is a borderline psychotic homosexual Doctor Who fanboy.

So basically sociology needs a doctor who fan? 

episode 5 is up on torrent sites btw whiteman. 

[recursivelyenumerable]

I've gotten much more interested in psychology and sociology lately myself.  I'm not sure I'd want to study them formally, though.  I'd rather just curl up with some Weber and Durkheim texts.

[TVC15]

I've gotten much more interested in psychology and sociology lately myself.  I'm not sure I'd want to study them formally, though.  I'd rather just curl up with some Weber and Durkheim texts.

I think had I not had bad experiences with psychologists and psychiatrists as an adolescent, I would have focused my studies in that area.  I had just stopped taking anti-depressants when I hit college, and I was kind of soured by experiences with the institution.  I went through too many psychiatrists and psychologists that just seemed to want to keep me medicated rather than actually trying to work out my issues. 

[TVC15]

I don't really.  At least not in regards to that stuff.  I was a latchkey kid and left to my own devices and after I got sick of misanthropic antics, I just got a mild case of depression, as teens are wont to do.  As was the style at the time, the decision was made to have me see mental health professionals, who at the time were handing out anti-depressants and anti-anxiety medication like candy rather than actually trying to help people work through problems.  Unfortunately, for me, the medication generally only made things more complicated, and in the end worse.  Knowing now what I wish I knew then, it was just a mild teenage funk, but jackass psychologists and psychologists went nuclear on it and sent me to the valley of the dolls.

[TVC15]

I'm not even sure if I was depressed to begin with.  I think it was just an excuse to cover for my compulsive xanax habit.

[TVC15]

Xanax was just an economically feasible way to get fucked up on the cheap.  It makes every drink feel like 3 drinks.  Or more.  Plus barbiturates are mildly euphoric.  It's not so much that issues lead me to substance abuse as it was me liking euphoria.

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

The historical context does play a role.

Wilde wrote this at the time when socialism had never been tried in a nation.  Maybe he got to know about the short lived Paris Commune but he did not get to see how socialism turned out.  So all he had to go by are theories.  Which is how we're able to look back at with hindsight and say "Socialism and individualism?  WTF?"  They seem contradictory because every socialist state turned out to be a nightmare but all Wilde had to go by was with theories.

The biggest downfall of socialism is that power is concentrated in the hands of the few.  Though had syphilis not rotted Lenin's brain, socialism would be entirely different today.  It wouldn't be a utopia but it wouldn't be the totalitarian nightmare that developed from it.

[Madrun Badrun]

Lennin had syphilis?

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9807EFD61239F931A15755C0A9629C8B63

There are other sources.  Although, people since the 1920s have suspected.

Personally I think he got it from Inessa Armand, who was a fan of "free love" as the only other woman Lenin fucked was his wife and she didn't sleep around either.  It explains his extremely erratic behavior towards the last few years of his life, which set the tone for Stalinist terror later on.