RoR: Forum

I voted for "Better Marketing" because it is a broader abstraction that includes "Reaching new markets."

Fundamentally, the basic problem is one of being able to make money from activism. If an endeavor is not profitable, it should not be undertaken. If an enterprise fails to make a profit, it should be closed.

For instance, how much would you pay to participate here?

Post 1

Monday, January 10, 2005 - 8:10pm

Once again, I cannot vote. ALL the possibilities listed are important -- except perhaps street marches and protests -- and each of us should make his choices of which possibility to actualize according to his talents and interests.

Personally, I like "Making current ideas more understandable." It's a process I very much enjoy and think I do quite well. And I never think that I fully understand an idea unless I can express it in rather simple terms.

Barbara

Post 2

Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 2:48pm

I chose marketing because it's closest to what I had in mind. I would have voted for a full-scale cultural war which would include infiltrating the arts, news media, movies, television shows while continuing to do the important scholary work needed to extensively develop this philosophy.

Adam

Post 3

Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 8:48pm

I choose better marketing. I remember some years back while reading about the Ironman Triathalon that eight of the top ten finishers were on the Pritikin diet. I instantly went out and bought a book on the Pritikin diet. When is Forbes magazine going to publish "Eight of the top ten most successful people in the world are objectivists". I think Luther Setzer has some great ideas about how people can be more effective and motivated in their own lives. Come on guys, become heroes.

Post 4

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 12:43am

I'm intrigued at the way this poll is going, with better marketing the clear favourite. SOLO was born in part from a belief that the other two were doing a bad marketing job - ARI with its haughty arrogance & TOC with its lack of KASS. But I'd be curious to hear from those who voted for better marketing what *they* think are the inadequacies currently & what specific improvements should be adopted.

Linz

Post 5

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 12:32pm

Michael,

I'm afraid your profit criterion doesn't hold up. Activism as an enterprise -- in other words, activist organizations -- have never been profitable. Not even the most successful ones. Not a single opinion journal, for example, has ever turned a profit. It just doesn't apply to an area in which one's returns are purely intellectual and not in the least bit financial.

Post 6

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 1:33pm

Marketing will get people to look at a book cover or visit a website. That would help a little to be sure.

Far and away the most important thing is the way so-called Objectivists lead their lives. A young person treats the adults in his life as a cast of characters. If just one of those characters is a "good-souled man" in the mold Galt or Roark the young person is likely to take notice. He will see that such a life is possible. If there are several good-souled adults in the kid's life his chances for success are greater. This is the way Objectivism will flourish, if it does.

I've met a lot of terrific men and women in Objectivist circles. Charles Tomlinson comes immediately to mind. Objectivist models like that are few and far between, unfortunately. Too many Rand fans are all talk.

Post 7

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 2:44pm

Alec: "Activism as an enterprise -- in other words, activist organizations -- have never been profitable. Not even the most successful ones. Not a single opinion journal, for example, has ever turned a profit. It just doesn't apply to an area in which one's returns are purely intellectual and not in the least bit financial."

Not so, Alec. NBI made a profit from the beginning and throughout its existence -- and so did every one of its satellite companies such as the NBI Book Service, NBI Publishing, etc., etc. And so did our journals -- the Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist. Clearly, it can be done.

Barbara

Post 8

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 3:31pm

"Fundamentally, the basic problem is one of being able to make money from activism. If an endeavor is not profitable, it should not be undertaken. If an enterprise fails to make a profit, it should be closed. "
Is the only form of profit money?
If the time spent is worth the happiness that is the result, then I would see no reaon to end such activism.

As for the poll, my vote goes to the need for more professors.
For professors, altruism is the norm in the United States. Teachers introduce students to altruist ideas and write of Objectivism and anything influenced by it (exept the Libertarian Party it seems) as nonsense. Capitalism is constantly under fire, while collectivism and it's Marxist views are revered.
If we had more professors, more students would understand the basic principles of O'ism. This would decrease the need to teach "people to apply the ideas better". If there were more O'ist professors, curreent ideas would be communicated more frequently in the public arena allowing for better understanding by the masses.
Professors could also "reach new markets" by being an example to those unfamiliar with O'ism.

Post 9

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 5:25pm

For professors, altruism is the norm in the United States. Teachers introduce students to altruist ideas and write of Objectivism and anything influenced by it (exept the Libertarian Party it seems) as nonsense. Capitalism is constantly under fire, while collectivism and it's Marxist views are revered.

I find myself suddenly moved to wonder if the power that many Objectivists (especially, it seems, ARI) ascribe to philosophy professors isn't akin to the �power� held by Gail Wynand.

Certainly, professors aren't powerless and are not to be maligned�rigorous philosophical examination of Objectivist ideas in an academic setting is critical if Objectivism is to gain the respect of the intellectual community as a serious philosophy. But philosophical education is not sufficient alone to change the minds of students. College-age students have lived in a culture of mysticism/altruism/collectivism for around two decades. Their sense of life is well-formed, and they will be drawn to the philosophy which resonates with that�which, in our current culture, means denial of reality, of reason, and of the self. Simply teaching them Objectivism as a philosophical alternative is not enough.

Remember: sense of life precedes philosophy. Sense of life, indeed, is all that most people will ever develop. I don't say this as a condemnation of some refusal to see on the part of the masses; I think that this is a part of the nature of human life. Most people will always live, love, and choose on the basis of sense of life�even philosophies will always be evaluated first at this level. And that is why, if widespread cultural change is effected, most of it will be done in terms of sense of life.

�It looks great in theory, but it'll never work in practice��this is the charge leveled by our times against purely academic systems of thought. That is the charge that is and will continue to be lain on Objectivism, no matter how much academic respect it might gain through the work of philosophy professors�for so long as pure academic thought remains the focus of Objectivist efforts. To give the lie to this charge, we must show our culture that yes, it does work in practice. We need to show to the world the Atlas Shruggeds and the Concertos of Deliverance that concretize the view of life that we promise, as well as the Rearden Metals and SpaceShipOnes that realize it. There is no need for an impetus on Objectivists to become philosophy professors�nor to become anything except what we will to become, so long as all our pursuits and all our passions are followed in the name of the best within us.

Cultural change will not be effected simply by talking about Objectivism. It can only come through individuals thinking, working, loving, creating�living as Objectivists.

Post 10

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 9:12pm

Barbara,

I stand corrected. I had forgotten about NBI. But I don't believe any of the popular opinion journals -- National Review, Nation, New Republic, etc. -- have turned a profit. At least that's what I've heard. Objectivist newsletter may be a singular exception (due largely to its unique nature as the sole medium for Ayn Rand's non-fiction writings) -- one way or the other, major kudos to you and Nathaniel for running it so proficiently.

Still, I don't believe that profit is the right criterion to measure activist success. As so much evidence shows, success is possible -- and has almost always happened -- without it. (National Review and Weekly Standard, just for the easy examples.)

Alec

Post 11

Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 1:27am

Lindsay,

A difficult question. I've admired Ayn Rand and considered myself an objectivist since I was about 18 (38 years). For the first four years, I was in the US Navy. I always had a AR book ["V of S", "Capitalism..","Anthem"]in my back pocket and would engage anyone who cared to listen in a discussion about AR's philosophy. I've never changed anyone's mind about anything. The problem is, Atlas has not shrugged. People will continue to delude themselves about where all of the things they take for granted come from. My proud union member brothers in law will continue to think "the little guy" is responsible for building and creating everything. The "suits" just rip everybody off for what's justly theirs. Anyway, the solution is to continue to engage in the debate on every level. Reading science fiction was a big influence on my life early on. I think the objectivists that are writing sf are on to something.

Objectivism needs a Richard Feynman. Find some really smart guys, totally absorbed, show them how objectivism is a good way to look at the world. (It'll be hard to get their attention). Feynman believed in a open society, no progress without freedom. Did anyone ever record his thoughts, if any, about Ayn Rand? You need someone outside of objectivism, someone everyone respects to say "Hey, you ought to read those guys, they're on to something". I've seen several books written by scientists dedicated to Karl Popper. None to Ayn Rand.

Post 12

Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 1:42pm

My vote went to Better Marketing, but More objectivist professors came a close second.

Better marketing: To prove a point - I know of perhaps two other objectivists in my country (admittedly I know of several more who have read an Ayn Rand book).

On another track - Having just read the 2002 article on the anniversary of Atlas Shrugged, the best marketing of Objectivism may just be word of mouth (as it was for the book). I completely agree with Lance about children and like Mike have never managed to change anyone's mind. Perhaps our best efforts should be directed to those who already think (somewhat) in an Objectivist way, but don't yet know about Objectivism.

More objectivist professors: One of my professors became probably one of my most influential teachers (despite the fact that he is fairly religious) after one of his earlier lectures in life insurance (of all subjects). He introduced the idea that products, systems etc. should be judged according to 4 things: efficiency, need, a 3rd idea which I can't remember exactly (may have been consistency or rationality) and dessert. The fact that he actually gave dessert any weight at all (in a very liberal university environment) and more broadly, that he insists that one thinks before drawing any conclusion, makes him a very rare professor in my mind. He opened a door, something which was far more valuable than someone cleverly teaching a technical subject. Now, had he been an objectivist professor ...

Post 13

Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 1:55pm

Barbara Branden wrote: Personally, I like "Making current ideas more understandable."

Could you explain that? "Making current ideas more understandable." was the one option I did not understand. The particular problem I had was in knowing what a "current" idea is.

Post 14

Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 2:05pm

Adam Buker wrote: "... include infiltrating the arts, news media, movies, television shows ..."

Well, that just means living your life and speaking the truth.

For a measure of success that might come from getting Objectivist ideas into the mass media and thereby changing society, I point to the large number of Hollywood stars who are Scientologists. In fact, I have a Scientology music CD callled The Joy of Creating. It is pretty uplifting stuff.

However, I do not see masses of people reprogramming their engrams as a result of John Travolta's being in many movies.

On the other hand, there is no doubt that Atlas Shrugged profoundly affected the course of modern history. I believe that this came not so much from Ayn Rand convincing people as from her book finding people.

Post 15

Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 2:24pm

Mike Erickson wrote: "When is Forbes magazine going to publish "Eight of the top ten most successful people in the world are objectivists".

Would that be when eight out of ten of the the most successful people in the world are Objectivists?

The worst way to look at this is from the perspective that philosophies like Objectivism, Scientology, Marxism, Christianity, etc., etc., are comfort blankets that explain to losers why they need never become successful. I have a slew of "business succcess" books. I am reading yet another compilation created for Donald Trump. Most people are successful because:
(1) they get along with other people
(2) they are perceived as leaders who can be trusted
after those, then,
(3) they are innovative
(4) they hard work
(5) they persevere, never giving up, even to the point of
(5a) they take (or make) a narrow field, and stay focused on it.

As a philosophy for socially inept non-conformists, Objectivism teaches other truths.

Long ago, editing a monthly newsletter for civil engineering students at New Mexico State University, I interviewed the head of a project and asked for advice on achieving success. Being from India, he had some deeper questions for me about what I meant by "success."

Personal happiness may or may not lead to public acclaim and tangible assets.

On the other hand, there is that nagging suspicion that if what I am doing is not profitable, then it is not congruent with reality.

Post 16

Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 2:37pm

Alex Mouhibian wrote: "... 'your profit criterion doesn't hold up. ... It just doesn't apply to an area in which one's returns are purely intellectual and not in the least bit financial."

So, there is no money in capitalism? That seems odd, doesn't it?

"Purely intellectual returns with no financial benefits" sounds like some kind of mind-body dichotomy, something from the Plato Institute or the Nirvana Society.

I always thought that profit is a physical phenomenon, like achieving lift in a fluid. In other words, to continue the analogy, we are all sitting in a big cardboard box with a picture of an engine drawn on it in crayon and we all going "Zoooommm!!!" but the box isn't moving. I think that if we stopped to study aerodynamics, we might do better, even if we limited ourselves to cardboard as a primary material.

If you need to have the efficacy of capitalism derived from the Law of Identify, perhaps that might be done, but I think you can do it for yourself. Moreover, the nature of money -- its being a store of human effort, a store of intelligent work -- suggests that if you are spending more than you are getting back, that you are wasting your life. That runs contrary to a basic principle of Objectivism. Every way I look at the problem, I see profit as a virtue that is not to be denied.

If there is another way to work the problem, I'd like to see it.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 1/13, 3:17pm)

Post 17

Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 2:59pm

Mike Erickson wrote: "...and would engage anyone who cared to listen in a discussion about AR's philosophy. I've never changed anyone's mind about anything."

Now, there is a big clue!

The problem is, Atlas has not shrugged.

Well, the fact is that the book prevented that from happening. Although, I do remind people that the 70s were a time when most young people avoided corporations and business in general but that when Reagan came in to office, it only took a few years for the Greed Decade to blossom among the Baby Boomers. Alan Greenspan chairs the Fed. Unfortunately, we still have Republicans who persecute and jail brilliant business innovators like Michael Milken and Martha Stewart, but that is another problem -- or perhaps not!

"... "the little guy" is responsible for building and creating everything. The "suits" just rip everybody off for what's justly theirs."

Where do you think they get an idea like that? Just because someone wears a suit does not make them a capitalist. My prejudices are always with blue collars over white. I think of Fred Kinnan telling the moochers that he knows what he is talking about because he never went to college. The story I liked to tell my UAW electricians is that when robots were first invented, the business managers and engineers figured that they could program machines to build cars and they could get rid of the unionized work forces. SInce none of them actually knew how to weld metal, that did not happen. As it turned out, it was more cost-effective to train a welder to program a robot than to train a programmer to weld sheetmetal.

Objectivism needs a Richard Feynman. Find some really smart guys, totally absorbed, show them how objectivism is a good way to look at the world.

Now, why do you think it is that really smart guys like Feynman are not Objectivists? As an Objectivist, I have always had a lot of respect for Feynman, of course. In fact, I read Surely You're Joking as bedtime stories for my daughter. Really smart guys like Feynman prefer to think things through for themselves, rather than being told what is true. So, you see, there is that basic problem. In another thread, I mentioned Kary Mullis, a Nobel Prize winning chemist who calls himself a libertarian. I like Mullis because I feel that I discovered him before he was famous, by reading his views in a magazine called Industrial Research back in the 1970s and early 80s. For a magazine sold to industrial chemists, IR was pretty radical, but it changed over the years and was acquired and toned down, alas. Anyway, the reason that a scientist would admit to being a "libertarian" but not an "Objectivist" is that libertarianism is an open system, whereas Objectivism is closed... or such is the perception. Also, L'ism is a broader abstraction into which O'ism belongs as an element of the set.

Post 18

Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 3:12pm

Linday Perigo wrote: ... I'd be curious to hear from those who voted for better marketing what *they* think are the inadequacies currently & what specific improvements should be adopted.

I like coffee cups and bumper stickers! "I (Heart) Capitalism."
I have a t-shirt, now getting old, from a guy in Tennessee, I think it was, and it has the New York City Atlas with "The Capitalist" under it.

Did you know that Armin Shimerman (Quark of Deep Space Nine) is a fan of Ayn Rand?
At least that's what he told me when I asked him at a trekker con. What could be better than Ferengi merchanise?

Barbara Branden's Passion lists all kinds of artists and musicians. Sell their works. We all recommend movies and books here. You can get links through Amazon and other venues that mean zero overhead in inventory for you. In fact, does the "Store" not sell this way now? Broaden the product line.

The WWW can be manipulated to bring you more clicks. You do not have to settle for third place. I mentioned this in Entrepreneurship, but no one seemed interested.

It is a principle of business that nothing happens until someone sells something. How are you selling www.SOLOHQ.com?

Post 19

Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 6:43pm