SoloHQ: Forum

Forum

Post 0

Thursday, October 13 - 6:56pm

Link

Edit

I posted this because of an interesting dilemma I've been thinking. Disney is trying to straddle the fence between the secular and Christian audiences it hopes to court with the Narnia adaption. To do a secular and a Christian soundtrack seems to be a win/win situation, but is this moral or a cop-out?

I've been thinking about this in relation to the Objectivist war for a reasoned culture versus capitalism's offering of goods to anyone who can pay. My own example is that I've worked in bookstore and record stores that carry a general selection running from New Age to Objectivism to Science to Sorcery. The record stores carry rock, rap, classical, jazz, world, polka, you name it.

My question is, is it moral or even practical for an Objectivist to run such a store while championing a cultural revolution?

Techno musician Moby, a leftist vegetarian eco-warrior, sold his music to be used in a car commercial, even though he opposed the auto industry for enviromental reasons. His justification? The company would simply use a knockoff of his songs anyway, so he may as well get the money for it, which he can invest in anti-auto industry programs. Practical or hypocrisy?

I want to say hypocrisy, if you are against something, you don't sleep with the enemy, and I believe that it's a dangerous game to try to take something down from the inside without becoming a part of the system. So I wonder about my involvement with store like Tower Records and Barnes and Noble, Borders, etc. where my actions support the sales of books and idea antithetical to my beliefs. With a bookstore, it's a little easier to justify, because I don't believe in censorship and agree with Rand that one should never take another's word on the matter, find out for yourself. I would not want to discourage a shopper from buying Kant if it's a case of verifying for himself the accusation of being the most evil man in history.
No, my objection is the company's promotion of antithetical ideas in the name of making a buck. If the company agreed with the ideas of Che Guevera, it's going to follow that they would promote the MOTORCYCLE DIARIES. I get upset, however, when told to promote a book of the week or whatever, and told how great it is, simply because it's being promoted. I expect more of a company selling ideas. (Ah, to be young and naive, blah blah blah.)
Now, if I were rich, I could pull a Wynand and claim that it's ok to pander, because then I could buy a house in the country and live off the stupidity of others. But we saw what happened there. Even if the rich can withdraw the sanction and buy an island, it's not a practical solution for the non rich. So the temptation to not starve on one's principles is a constant concern, yet I think that means that the non-rich have MORE of a responsibility to resist the temptation to make money at the expense of their beliefs.
I can refuse to actively promote such items, and simply provide the material for those who ask. I honestly don't expect non-Objectivist companies to really consider these matters. But if an Objectivist were to own B&N, would they be able to sleep at night promoting antithetical ideas? Would Justifications of capitalism be acceptable? I think they wouldn't, because it would be like the Moby example; how does one sell the ideas they are fighting? It's short-term thinking, any money earned by the sale would be lost in putting that money into the fight against the ideas.
I am thinking that an Objectivist would have to forego the superstore model and pull a "Roark", catering to the changes that one wants to see in the world. The Christian entertainment industry is proof that this is not martyrdom; the sales of LEFT BEHIND books and Christian rock bands are going steady. The recent flap over the NARNIA soundtracks are another example. Is it too early for Objectivists to be able to claim such tactics, or are we still at the stage of having to play the Moby gambit?

Post 1

Thursday, October 13 - 7:51pm

Link

Edit

It doesn't bother me in the least.

As you seem to know, one must be conversant in that which one seeks to supplant. So I say it's perfectly well to publicise any and all ideas with all the rhetoric, fanfares and most charitable interpretations that can be mustered in their favour. This is healthy for the world of ideas- let all myriad of unleaven notions fight it out! Furthermore, to truly pulverise, mock and dance upon the mangled remains of unreason we need to dispatch it not when it is obscured and unnoticed but when it is at its optimum strength and in plain light of all to see.

Post 2

Thursday, October 13 - 8:10pm

Link

Edit

In an ideal situation, Rick, this would be fine.
The ideal for a bookstore, perhaps, would be one where the employees were knowledgable of the product, and engaged customers in this kind of talk. (You see it more in independent shops, especially lefist-oriented ones...and of course, the comic shops!). But in a big-box retailer like B&N, books are a mere commodity, the ideas don't matter as much as Oprah's seal of approval. (BTW, people are sheeple example 62: we are being instructed to warn buyers of the latest Oprah pick, A MILLION LITTLE PIECES, that this is not a typical Oprah selection, the topic involving a drug addict and being rather graphic...shades of Wynand here...matter of fact, before this book was picked for the big O, we were promoting it. A supervisor handed us the book at the register and said " It would be great if you could sell a few copies of this." When I asked him what it was about, he responded, "well, it tells you on the back." He DIDN'T EVEN KNOW. It was being pushed because someone told him to push it. Someone got Oprah to carry it, and now Oprah is pushing it. Do we see a pattern here?

Again, I am not pushing for censorship. What I am pushing for is a principled stand on the ideas being promoted. And in an ideal Objectivist bookstore, would an owner be in the wrong for REFUSING to carry a certain book based on the principle that he is under no obligation to provide a platform for ideas he is fighting against, even if he supports free speech? Or is he wrong for turning down money by refusing to sell a product? (Again, I am on the side of the Roarkian model for choosing commissions.)

Post 3

Thursday, October 13 - 8:47pm

Link

Edit

What? My stand isn't principled enough for you?

What I am pushing for is a principled stand on the ideas being promoted. And in an ideal Objectivist bookstore, would an owner be in the wrong for REFUSING to carry a certain book based on the principle that he is under no obligation to provide a platform for ideas he is fighting against, even if he supports free speech?

My answer was 'yes'. Such a person would be wrong to refuse a place to his intellectual opponents only on the grounds that they are his opponents. He, being an Objectivist, would not only want to win but also to beat those of unreason. To do that you must engage. There can be no victory by default in my view.

I imagine that's why my political party web site links to other party sites. If you're not afraid their ideas are better you welcome the comparison and the contest.

Post 4

Thursday, October 13 - 9:08pm

Link

Edit

Settle Down, Riled Giles! I wasn't attacking your stand. I was differentiating your stand (which is my stand) from the less ideal. Actually, I'm not sure our stand is exactly similar, though...personally, I think one can engage without sanctioning, and I don't like the idea of making a profit if it means empowering the opponent's view if it's harmful.

(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 10/13, 9:30pm)

(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 10/13, 9:32pm)

Post 5

Friday, October 14 - 12:59am

Link

Edit

When they chuck you in prison you're supposed to earn cred by facing up against the biggest, ugliest, toughest punk you can find and picking a fight with him. If you work your way through the New Zealand section/s of your bookstore there's some good Barry Crump stories like that.

In an ideal situation, Rick, this would be fine.

I don't know what that means.

I don't like the idea of making a profit if it means empowering the opponent's view if it's harmful.

Well I do like the idea. I think you should cheer up, it's an honorable way to earn a crust. It's like your the groundsman for armageddon, making sure the cricket pitch is a fair playing ground that the best ideas may win.

Post 6

Friday, October 14 - 6:10am

Link

Edit

Funny choice, that apocalypse, considering the Narnia angle.

Post 7

Friday, October 14 - 6:41am

Link

Edit

Joe,

You raise an interesting question. My Objectivist bookstore would be stocked with Plato, Kant, and Marx like most others. There's nothing wrong in learning about ideas anti-thetical to Objectivism. I would encourage it. However, I would prominently display the writings of Objectivists and their allies - unlike most other bookstores. I would sponsor a book club to promote their writings. I would make my store a refuge from the irrational nonsense of the world outside it.

That would be the distinction that makes a difference, and if I profit from selling Marx in the process, I'm sleeping easy at night.

Andy

Post 8

Friday, October 14 - 8:01am

Link

Edit

It sounds more like you're envious that [other than Rand's works] Objectivism does not sell like soap, tho Christian stuff does...

Post 9

Friday, October 14 - 3:39pm

Link

Edit

Actually, I am surprised at how well it does sell, proportionately, at least. And don't get me wrong, I am not advocation an all Objectivist book store. Where would we get our Calvin and Hobbes?

In one sense, maybe I AM jealous. I'd admit to that, if you meant that I want to see my preferred vision sell. Who wouldn't? I want the same success for Objectivism as the left and religious get for theirs. I am jealous that they have organized enough to have that kind of success; there a hundreds of Christian writers and musicians making a mint off of books and cds.
The key is that I am not advocating censorship or forceful banning of the opposition's materials. I can even see the justification for selling books with evil ideas, if the context is to "know thy enemy." What I can't agree to is the promotion of those ideas for the sake of a few dollars without stating that it is an opposite view. You wouldn't expect Second Renaissance to tell their staff to feature the latest book on the wonders of Che Guevera as a boon to society.
Christian bookstore have it right, I believe, in focusing on their ideas. And they do well with it. Objectivists should be loathing the goals and admiring the methods.

As Chris Sciabarra warned, America is getting "caught up in the rapture!"

Post 10

Friday, October 14 - 4:24pm

Link

Edit

You're a tough nut to crack aren't you?

What I can't agree to is the promotion of those ideas for the sake of a few dollars without stating that it is an opposite view.

But it's not just for the sake of a few dollars, there are other considerations!

What would I have to show you in order for you to change your mind?

Post 11

Friday, October 14 - 5:44pm

Link

Edit

So I've been told, Rick.
"What would I have to show you in order for you to change your mind?"

LOL. Show me a New York Times Bestseller list that does not contain an Oprah book club selection, a pseudo-scientific self-help book, an umpteenth LEFT BEHIND proclamation of our impending damnation, a leftist screed on the guilt of the white man's destruction of Earth, or a fascinating portrait into the mind of a serial killer.

Post 12

Friday, October 14 - 6:37pm

Link

Edit

Joe, in general, the goal of a business is financial profit, to make as much money as possible. For large publicly traded corporations which are owned by multitudinous shareholders, financial profit is the near unanimous goal. As a shareholder, as chairman of the board answering to the shareholders, or as corporation president answering to the chairman of the board and the shareholders, financial profit would be my overwhelming priority.

A rational businessman knows that only rational actions will result in profits. Irrational actions, such as dishonesty, will result in losses. Remember that all business is based on the trader principle. A business does not provide goods and services for the customers. It provides goods and services for the customers' money.

I use to sell specially designed labels (some with Mickey Mouse on them) to a Jewish businessman and his son who manufactured Christmas stockings. I never asked them if they were using their profits to donate to a synagogue or not. I wasn't interested. I was only interested in my sales commission. Likewise, they didn't ask me what I intended with my sales commission.

Of course, financial profit is not always the only goal of a business and not always even the primary goal. Individual businessmen, more likely in privately owned smaller businesses, may have other goals. A good example is SOLO, now structuring itself as a "non-profit" business, where the primary goal is to win the culture war between the rational and the irrational (SOLO principals may, of course, correct or clarify this statement if they wish.)

As an employee of a business, your primary goal is most probably your paycheck. In exchange for paying you, your employer expects you to do certain things. You have the right to question what they ask you to do or even to refuse if they instruct you to do something unethical. I don't see anything wrong with directing customers to Christian titles when they ask you to do so. Doesn't mean you can't be yourself and when asked for general advice like, "Can you recommend a good novel?" to suggest We the Living.

(Edited by Bob Palin on 10/14, 6:45pm)

Post 13

Friday, October 14 - 6:55pm

Link

Edit

And that, Bob, is why I love the movie 'Other People's Money'...

Post 14

Friday, October 14 - 7:04pm

Link

Edit

Bob, I get that, and for me, it's old hat, actually. But even though I do NEED the paycheck right now, I do make a point to draw the line at certain things, and I always admired Roark's willingness to work in the quarry than to violate the integrity of his buildings.
I used the bookstore as an example because it is in the particular business of selling ideas. Items such as clothing, auto parts, etc. are usually not moral considerations. But a store that sells classics called STEAL THIS BOOK and more recent offerings condemning global trade, free trade, and the evils of capitalism while operating under a capitalist system, to me, seem at best confused and at worst guilty of the very crime that Wynand committed with the Banner.

"In general, the goal of a business is financial profit, to make as much money as possible. For large publicly traded corporations which are owned by multitudinous shareholders, financial profit is the near unanimous goal. As a shareholder, as chairman of the board answering to the shareholders, or as corporation president answering to the chairman of the board and the shareholders, financial profit would be my overwhelming priority."

Could you imagine Roark giving in to his shareholders? I couldn't, because I couldn't see Roark HAVING shareholders. We saw what happened to Wynand when he stood up for a principle at the expense of his shareholders. 'What are we losing our shirts over? Principles?".

An example of a company that DOESN'T lose sight of this is Wal-Mart, oddly enough. They have a strong Christian customer base, and routinely refuse to carry a cd that contains what they consider obscene material. (I don't know the religious beliefs of Sam Walton, whether Wal-Mart is really committed to their view or simply placating a prominent customer base). Is Wal-Mart practicing bad business by refusing to make a buck off of something they find distasteful? I think they are an example of the power of idealism in business, because many bands have actually CHANGED the content in order to get into Wal-Mart's bins.

Some people accuse Wal-Mart of censorship, being a bully, etc. I say they are doing no such thing, they are merely refusing a platform for what they deem antithetical to their beliefs. It is not their job to educate their customers, and they are free to go buy the cd elsewhere.

Should an Objectivist business not follow this same model?

Post 15

Friday, October 14 - 7:26pm

Link

Edit

Joe, I never read Abbie Hoffman's Steal This Book but I did, as a teenager, read his Revolution for the Hell of It. At the time I thought it was pretty funny. The only other person who's ever mentioned reading this book to me was another Objectivist. While I don't endorse Hoffman's "Yippie-ism," I don't see anything wrong with selling or buying his books.

Post 16

Friday, October 14 - 7:40pm

Link

Edit

Never read it myself, just picking on the irony of the title!

Post 17

Friday, October 14 - 9:10pm

Link

Edit

Listen Maurone,

Aslan was the son of God, right? He could have just clobbered the White Witch from the start if he wanted to. Didn't have to put up with the nonsense of being rubbed out, didn't have to involve the community in the battle. He didn't have to go through the trouble of educating and empowering his followers, letting them have their triumphs and failures to earn their freedom for themselves. He didn't have to do that if all he wanted to do was to win. Just a big roar would have smited her under a mushroom cloud, no problem.

But winning wasn't enough, he wanted to beat the Witch. To do that you need to make it about hearts and minds. The victory has to be in the people, victory de facto is not enough. Aslan gave the Witch enough rope to hang herself by. That's what we have to do too, let the battle play out.

As a bookseller you play an honorable role in the coming Objectivist revolution. You are a transmitter of ideas- you're making sure there's enough rope. It is a necessary but not sufficient condition for Objectivist victory. If Mr Walmart were in the revolution business he too should be chocking the market up with all the sensations and ideas that it can bare.

Do ye ken?

ps 'Other People's Money' is my 1st equal favorite film, not least of all for the romantic side of things

Post 18

Friday, October 14 - 9:40pm

Link

Edit

Well, the thing to remember about the Narnia Chronicles is that they were written by C.S. Lewis, a Christian, and Aslan is supposed to be an incarnation of Jesus. Lots of turning of the other cheek, and resurrections. In the story, the witch kills Aslan, yet he is brought back to life. That is the Christian way. In real life, he's simply be supper for Andrew Bissell.

That's the thing-as a bookseller, I am a transmitter of ideas. The dilemma is that booksellers are not being asked to transmit ideas based on their relevance to reality, but to the pressure from publishers and stockholders and Oprah to promote the flavor of the week, regardless of the ideas.

Incidentally, I would feel the same way if I was asked to sell ATLAS SHRUGGED for no reason other than it was the flavor of the week.

"Joe, I think it would be great if you sold a few of these."

"Atlas Shrugged? What's that?"

"Oh, it's great!"

"What makes it great?"
"Oh, I don't know...I think it was on a critic's list of most important books."

"Well, why is it important? Why should our customers care about this?"

"Uh, I don't know...read the back. I gotta go answer the phone...".

Post 19

Friday, October 14 - 10:43pm

Link

Edit

JM Keynes, General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, 1936. He picked his fight with the economic Pope of his day. He didn't take on sissies, he went for Marshall and Pigou- the authoritative supremo doctrine of the day. That's where he delivered hisdevastation, that's how he effected a revolution. Keynes interpreted Marshall's ideas as generously has he could- and THEN tore them down. For a true and lasting victory you need to defeat a strong enemy. Getting the badies' ideas out there into the world is good for we who seek to supplant them!

Well, the thing to remember about the Narnia Chronicles is that they were written by C.S. Lewis, a Christian,

That doesn't mean jack. So what if it came from a Christian? Good sense is good sense for all that. Give 'em enough rope....

The dilemma is that booksellers are not being asked to transmit ideas based on their relevance to reality, but to the pressure from publishers and stockholders and Oprah

It's a free-market business that follows the 'flavour of the week' price signals. That's what it's supposed to do, you wouldn't complain about that. If you don't like the flavour then you know what we have to do to fix it. That's what we're here for.

Incidentally, I would feel the same way if I was asked to sell ATLAS SHRUGGED for no reason other than it was the flavor of the week.

Bah. All sorts of silly things bounce around the marketplace for unfathomable reasons.

For pushing Atlas, Kant, Black Sabbath, Oprah and Byron you have your own reasons. Your reason is to up the anti and get enough blood pumping into people's brains so there can be a big Objectivist revolution that affects hearts and minds instead of one that has the life-changing impact of a new flavour of cheese cracker.
That makes yours a job with honor, whereas others can go through the same motions without honor because they're doing it blindly by Oprah's edict with no attention span beyond what it takes to read a blurb.