A thread about objectivism, Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged

[Nessus]

Except In the year 1984 is a work based on fascism and communism, not a basis for either of the two ideologies. Ayn Rand is the mother of the philosophical movement of objectivism, and she only worked in the realm of fiction. Her fans are more akin to scientologists than fascists or communists.

Also they are disturbingly vocal on the Internet

[Wraith]

Ayn Rand is the mother of the philosophical movement of objectivism, and she only worked in the realm of fiction.

That's not true. I've actually recently started to read through some of her essays while trying to avoid doing work. They're all non-fiction. She actually wrote a great deal of non-fiction work.

Since it's the first I've read of her work, and my previous knowledge of her came largely from the internets, her essays have been surprisingly reasonable and not at all what the Internet has led me to expect or believe about her. The stuff I've read so far have been about the evils of racism, how important a government is to a society, why vigilantism should not be allowed, that wealth does not imply virtue, and how religion is unreasonable. I haven't read too far, and probably won't until I desperately need to procrastinate again, but so far there's nothing that seems as heinous I keep being told all her ideas are.

[Illusions]

I'm beginning to think you haven't actually read the book, as it wasn't solely about titans of industry, (though those were certainly the main characters). There were subplots with people who were minor characters, yet clearly productive members of society working retail, as a short order cook, executive assistants, and ironically enough, a hobo.

I must not have been clear enough. The guy who ensures that their toilet flushes properly is but one of millions of people who ensure that society continues to function. So long as what you take or use in society is not more than what you give back, you are helping it to continue functioning. This was the point that is glossed over. Does the book not treat the majority of society as if they are parasites? Held aloft by a small contingent of productive members of society? This is not the case in reality. Do they truthfully discuss these millions of people who ensure that they can shit, eat, breed, shop, invent, and continue functioning in a modern society? Or do they treat them like a problem to be overcome?

[Aimless]

Ah okay I just assumed the dystopia depicted in Atlas Shrugged was in fact the dystopia Rand sincerely believed would arise due to a failure to embrace objectivism.

Perhaps an even more appropriate parallel would be Aesop's Fables, ie. a work that, in addition to its literary functions, serves to teach virtuous behaviour and thought through the examples of larger-than-life characters set in a world that is not ours (animals talk, dystopian future, whatever).

But I can dig that. I kinda wanted to be like Rand al'Thor once, for various reasons.

[Aimless]

That's not true. I've actually recently started to read through some of her essays while trying to avoid doing work. They're all non-fiction. She actually wrote a great deal of non-fiction work.

Since it's the first I've read of her work, and my previous knowledge of her came largely from the internets, her essays have been surprisingly reasonable and not at all what the Internet has led me to expect or believe about her. The stuff I've read so far have been about the evils of racism, how important a government is to a society, why vigilantism should not be allowed, that wealth does not imply virtue, and how religion is unreasonable. I haven't read too far, and probably won't until I desperately need to procrastinate again, but so far there's nothing that seems as heinous I keep being told all her ideas are.

While I haven't read her essays the commentary I've found has given me the impression that she isn't as crazy-evil as she's sometimes made out to be, although some adherents of objectivism seem to have a skill for taking it to provocative extremes. What I am curious about is the association of rational self-interest with virtue. I can't get a clear answer on whether or not a hypothetical altruistic/sacrificial act would be virtuous or not. Some say that, according to objectivism, it would most certainly not be virtuous. Others say that feelgoods are a legitimate part of self interest, although I'm not sure how that works.

[Aimless]

Btw Illusions would you buy a novel about a dystopian future wherein all toilet-cleaners (okay and all, er, social workers and other govt. stooges) went on strike? What do you think that scenario would look like? Would it be inspirational? Would it say something meaningful about what we ought to do and how we ought to do it?

[RandBlade]

I'll take your word for it as I have no choice, but nonetheless I think you've made it clear what you think of communism and socialism in practice. So is it so outlandish to condemn objectivism without having read the source material? I fully admit I make fun of the breaking the laws of physics thing as a nod to critiques and summaries I've read rather than the actual work.

Yes, I despise communism and socialism in practice. Nor is it outlandish to attack objectivism.

But there is a world of difference between attacking a philosophy for both practical (you stated "in practice") as well as alternative philosophical reasons ... and making entirely vacuous and false attacks on a specific book.

More particularly if I say that I believe communism and extreme socialism doesn't work in practice as causing a disconnect between effort and reward means people lose the incentive to put in effort and therefore don't . . . or if I say Das Kapital is a ridiculously stupid book strewn with so many spelling and grammatical errors that anyone who takes it seriously is clearly a buffoon . . . the first is a philosophical and practical viewpoint, the latter is both idiotic and wrong.

Just so we're clear, we are talking about a literary work of dystopian fiction which Rand uses as a vehicle for her philosophy, yes? Not a philosophical treatise or an essay on history but a work of fiction that, by all accounts, seems to be a pretty good story. The appropriate parallels would probably be Brave New World or 1984, rather than Das Kapital.

I think 1984 is an excellent parallel (and just an excellent book in general), it is indeed a fiction.

[Aimless]

One can't help but wonder what Rand would think about today:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...023100230.html

Libertarians love her, but she rejected them as "emotional hippies of the right."

Conservatives love her, but she opposed Ronald Reagan, saying, "His likeliest motive for entering the Presidential race is power lust."

Right-leaning Christians love her, but she was an atheist, an abortion supporter and a champion of the anti-Christian ideal that selfishness is a virtue. She also called religion a "sign of a psychological weakness."

Her fans -- including Republican Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, talk radio's Rush Limbaugh and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas -- would be crushed to learn she might never love them back, either.

[...]

Some of her ideas are central to the American Dream. But Ms. Rand did much of her writing while hopped up on amphetamines and nicotine. And like most people who abuse this combination, she went too far.

She crafted philosophical arguments and wrote bizarre works of fiction to prove their premises. Then, in the delusional grandiosity that only chemicals can inspire, she declared herself, "the most creative thinker alive."

[...]

Ms. Rand mentored former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, yet look what he did. He poured gasoline on the free market until it exploded. Banks then required unprecedented government assistance. It's difficult think of a single individual who has redistributed more wealth and interfered in more free markets than Mr. Greenspan.

The Tea Party, however, keeps drinking Ms. Rand's Kool-Aid, not realizing the extent to which she inspired the very Fed that many Tea Party members now want abolished.

They love Ms. Rand because they think she foreshadowed our dystopian nightmare. In "Atlas Shrugged," Ms. Rand describes a big government takeover of business amid an economic crisis.

Unproductive citizens of the welfare state, whom Ms. Rand dubbed "parasites," "looters" and "moochers," lobbied politicians to regulate businesses, confiscate wealth and destroy productivity. We now know corporations are the real "parasites" in an economic crisis.

Ms. Rand warned, "Government 'help' to business is just as disastrous as government persecution." And I agree. But she did not imagine executives would loot their shareholders, cause an economic crisis and then beg for government help.

Her brand of laissez-faire capitalism led to corporations growing bigger and bigger until "too-big-to-regulate" became "too-big-to-fail." She never imagined big business telling big government what to do or a government that only takes over failing businesses -- not successful ones.

Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard also sells millions of badly written books. Ms. Rand is just like him. She's become something she also wouldn't love: a religion.

[Draco]

^^That was an atrocious article against her. But I'm not surprised, knowing just how left leaning the intellectual community is in the Western world.

Ayn Rand was a heinous, wretched wreck of a human being, traumatized by the Soviet Union to the extent that she pretty much hated humanity and thought smoking cigarettes was the most exquisite way of expressing human dominance over...Something.

She wrote an atrocious, horribly mangled book that (I hear) uses far too many words to convey nothing worth conveying. She also fucked some guys while fucking other guys, I guess?

How about you actually read the book then instead of going by "I hear". It's interesting though to see your scathing post against her and the philosophy, yet when I write up my own similar attack against socialism and the likes, people point at me and say "oh no, you're not considering what they're saying, you don't understand, oh boo hoo *suck on thumb*"

Humans (in the essence of our very beings) are messy, complicated, romantic, confused, emotional, twisted and torn.

No they're not, and it doesn't mean that they have to be. It wasn't the messy, complicated, confused, emotional, twisted human that came to create the modern computer, or figure out how to generate electricity and put it to use, or make it possible for us to fly around the world, etc. But it is the messy, complicated, confused, emotional and twisted human who commits an act of genocide, who rapes, murders, takes away the rights of others.

Have you ever considered that you think its good because your personal philosophy is in line with the one its espousing, and therefore you are more able to accept its flaws than someone whose beliefs are in opposition?

And have you ever considered that you're so against it because of your own personal philosophy?

. Her fans are more akin to scientologists than fascists or communists.

At least they don't give themselves the right to take away others' rights. You must really hate freedom.

Also they are disturbingly vocal on the Internet

Why the downcast face? The Western world is lead by so called 'intellectuals' whom largely ascribe to some deformed offshoot of Left-wing philosophy. You should be smiling in every post.

her essays have been surprisingly reasonable and not at all what the Internet has led me to expect or believe about her.

The Left would want you to believe that she's this god-awful woman, and they'll stop at nothing to silence her or her supporters.

but so far there's nothing that seems as heinous I keep being told all her ideas are.

Some people just loathe the idea of 'freedom' and what it truly means for our world. A lot of attacks against her are soley against her personal self and not the philosophy. I don't know which essays you've read, but I'd recommend "The Virture of Selfishness" which is a collection of essays by her and some other guy. Or alternatively you can watch some of the youtube videos on her, where she talks about her philosophy in some 70s talk shows.

I think a lot of people misunderstand her, what she says, what she advocates, and her entire philosophy in general. The key aspect to her philosophy is her philosophy, and I've found that a lot of people don't understand that her type of system would only work in the right intellectual climate. This is why she has her characters who go on strike to create their own 'society'.

In a world where religion no longer dictates the rights and wrongs, a lot of people are either remotely religious (so they identify as Christians but haven't seen the inside of a church for years), skeptics or just atheists, and this leaves a certain 'philosophical vacuum' in the lives of these people, and in society in general. People do need to have meaning to their lives, to strive for something and religion was that purpose for centuries, but now that it's lost its appeal, it's no wonder that people (or more so youth) these days feel even more lost or without direction than ever before. This vacuum came to be filled in by Left leaning philosophers, who all advocated for their own version of life, and in the end you have this confluence of intellectual garbage that has resulted in todays world. You only need to ask me to give you a brief overview of senior high school English and Drama in my state to see what I'm on about.

And for those of you who like to say that such a system as Ayn Rand advocates for isn't possible because humans are inherently confused, irrataional or whatever, well you're wrong. I know that she admires 19th century America a lot, and whilst I haven't done any research into that time period, she leads me to believe that 19th century America is where they almost 'got it/had it' in terms of the intellectual climate and system (so government, economics). I think that humans are capable of establishing such a system, and if we're to go by Ayn Rand's claims in relation to 19th century America, then we nearly did 'have it'. But if you still don't think that it's possible, then consider this: the dark ages were a time in Europe where religion and superstition were entrenched in the daily lives of the people, there was zero respect for human rights, property and the likes, the church had the final say, etc. Living in that time, everyone must have thought that things would never change, because that's how people are, but it was humans who changed it all, they went from being god-fearing xyz religion to free thinking people and ultimately created the modern world.

[RandBlade]

Some of that article is very sensible and correct, but much is hypocritical doublethink:

Ms. Rand warned, "Government 'help' to business is just as disastrous as government persecution." And I agree. But she did not imagine executives would loot their shareholders, cause an economic crisis and then beg for government help.

Errr, yes she did. That's why she warned against helping business. Taking Rand's philosophy to extremes the banks would have been allowed to fail, that distinctly didn't happen.

A very large number of the "parasites" in Atlas Shrugged were businessmen if you actually read it.

Ms. Rand mentored former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, yet look what he did. He poured gasoline on the free market until it exploded. Banks then required unprecedented government assistance. It's difficult think of a single individual who has redistributed more wealth and interfered in more free markets than Mr. Greenspan.

He did no such thing. He kept interest rates low allowing debts to spiral out of control. That's got nothing to do with the free market.

The Tea Party, however, keeps drinking Ms. Rand's Kool-Aid, not realizing the extent to which she inspired the very Fed that many Tea Party members now want abolished.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Rand would not have endorsed the Fed any more than the Christian extremists at the start, she certainly didn't inspire it.

[Aimless]

I think it was just a reference to this:

htttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspan#Objectivism



The article is directed against those who claim to follow Rand's philosophy and hold her in high regard; the digs at Rand herself are peripheral.

[RandBlade]

The digs at those who claim to follow Rand's philosophy and that she wouldn't agree back with them was the coherent part of the article. The problem is that it then turned to an attack on Rand and her philosophy by association ... but by associating her philosophy with the likes of those whom he'd already said had nothing to do with her. Had he just written the first half it would have worked but he couldn't stop there which made the whole thing fall apart.

EDIT:

During the 1950s and 1960s Greenspan was a proponent of Objectivism, writing articles for Objectivist newsletters and contributing several essays for Rand's 1966 book Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal including an essay supporting the gold standard.^[46][47] Rand stood beside him at his 1974 swearing-in as Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers. Greenspan and Rand remained friends until her death in 1982.^[38] Although Greenspan was once recognized as a proponent of laissez-faire capitalism, some Objectivists find his support for a gold standard somewhat incongruous or dubious,^{[citation needed]} given the Federal Reserve's role in America's fiat money system and endogenous inflation. He has come under criticism from Harry Binswanger,^[48] who believes his actions while at work for the Federal Reserve and his publicly expressed opinions on other issues show abandonment of Objectivist and free market principles. However, when questioned in relation to this, he has said that in a democratic society individuals have to make compromises with each other over conflicting ideas of how money should be handled. He said he himself had to make such compromises, because he believes that "we did extremely well" without a central bank and with a gold standard.^[49]

As it says in your link, what he proposed as part of Objectivism (eg gold standard etc) and what he actually did in the Fed are not the same thing. To blame the Fed's failings on Objectivism just because someone who 40 years earlier had written Objectivist articles and had been a prominent one had done the exact opposite of what he'd written ... it's not Objectivism that failed.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Discuss all these awesome things in this thread! And quit clogging up the pictures thread, you fucking insufferable pedantic assholes

It's shit, son.

(haven't read it)

Me neither and I agree. I base my conclusions on the people who praise the book. They all seem to share one specific quality.

Pass.

I also haven't read the entire bible page for page.

[wiggin]

Not interested in getting into a debate, but I wanted to assert that I have read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead (haven't gotten around to Anthem). I didn't like them very much, either as novels or for their philosophical content. As novels, they were very preachy, overly verbose, and frankly not the most interesting plots. But that's to be expected, given what she was trying to do. It doesn't actually make them good books, though. As philosophy, I never really bought into objectivism, though I'll admit I haven't read any of her detailed non-fiction essays discussing her theory in more explicit detail.

Point being, it's possible to actually read her books and still disagree with her.

[RandBlade]

Point being, it's possible to actually read her books and still disagree with her.

Of course it is. Same with any book.

[Nessus]

Point being, it's possible to actually read her books and still disagree with her.

It is also possible to ingest dog faeces, but this doesn't seem like a worthwhile use of one's time and masticatory apparatus.

[wiggin]

It is also possible to ingest dog faeces, but this doesn't seem like a worthwhile use of one's time and masticatory apparatus.

I don't think that's fair. Ayn Rand obviously is as controversial figure, but to dismiss her ideology entirely on the basis of what some people who claim her as an inspiration have done or advocate isn't very reasonable. I am extremely opposed to her philosophy, but at least I gave her a fair hearing first. I think most of the Communist Manifesto is wrong, but I read that as well. It's a good way to get a feel for different political philosophies even if one isn't going to be converted.

[RandBlade]

To be abundantly clear while I agree a lot with objectivism and Rand, I would not call myself an objectivist. The only philosophically controversial words I'd assign to myself are atheist, liberal and capitalist.

Objectivism IMO has a lot to work with, but no political philosophy can ever be perfect or cover everything to extremes. Failures come when people are too stubborn to admit that.

[Aimless]

Btw, when you guys think of the "self-made man", what do you think that description entails? I ask because Enoch's response in the other thread made me wonder if we're all working with the same definitions.

[RandBlade]

I suspect we're not. When I think of a "self-made man" I think of someone who started with normalish/humble origins and has worked hard to become more successful. Not inherited it like a Lord or won it randomly like a lottery winner.

Note: I think a very, very, very large number of people can be thought of as "self-made men" (or women). Nothing too extreme. I may even go as far as saying potentially most people.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Does Ayn rand take into account that being a "self-made-man" includes taking risks. Risks which when they work out well make for a great success-story. But when they fail, the "self-made-man" is no longer considered a self-made-man.

Doesn't being a self-made-man also rely heavily on factors outside of the self-mad-man's control? Doesn't that make "self-made-man" a misnomer?

[RandBlade]

Taking risks is indeed something people can and often should do. When they fail, sometimes we just have to brush ourselves down, get back up and try again. What doesn't kill us can often make us stronger.

I highly doubt there are any self-made-men at all that have never had a risk turn bad.

No man is an island and Rand says that too in her books. A self-made-man is not some sort of wilderness loner.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Taking risks is indeed something people can and often should do. When they fail, sometimes we just have to brush ourselves down, get back up and try again. What doesn't kill us can often make us stronger.

Or it can bankrupt us.

[RandBlade]

Or it can bankrupt us.

Only if you risk too much.

I've taken many risks in my life, but never been so stupid/desperate as to risk everything on one thing. I specifically ruled out gambling as self-made anyway.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Gambling.

[RandBlade]

Indeed.

Feel free to come back when you want a serious discussion.

[Nessus]

I don't think that's fair. Ayn Rand obviously is as controversial figure, but to dismiss her ideology entirely on the basis of what some people who claim her as an inspiration have done or advocate isn't very reasonable. I am extremely opposed to her philosophy, but at least I gave her a fair hearing first. I think most of the Communist Manifesto is wrong, but I read that as well. It's a good way to get a feel for different political philosophies even if one isn't going to be converted.

Well, as per my earlier discussion with Minx in the, uh, telephone thread, I think we can take as an axiom the finiteness of our life-span. Therefore it follows that we have to somehow filter the information stream we're exposed to with some ultimately arbitrary criteria. I haven't read the Communist Manifesto either (or if I have, I do not recall it), and have only been exposed to its criticisms (and advocates) through secondary sources such as European history, the Black Book of Communism etc. I've read text-book summaries of what communism was and what the main claims of the ideology were, and I'm not sure exactly how much more informed I would become reading source material. Stalin's letters, for instance, are exercises in decrypting true intent behind his ideologically coloured verbiage (a task much more lethal to the now-dead recipients of said letters...). The Bible is an even more glaring example of this; I have read the original but I feel I've only understood it after reading secondary analyses done by people smarter than I. I got something out of Paradise Lost, but I would probably be more enlightened if I also read some second-hand analysis, as well.

Fundamentally, I only have so much time to give, and reading the source material on Rand's (Ayn's!) inane views rates about as high on my list of priorities/interests as watching Gone With the Wind.

I haven't read all of Mein Kampf, either...

[Enoch the Red]

Not interested in getting into a debate, but I wanted to assert that I have read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead (haven't gotten around to Anthem). I didn't like them very much, either as novels or for their philosophical content. As novels, they were very preachy, overly verbose, and frankly not the most interesting plots. But that's to be expected, given what she was trying to do. It doesn't actually make them good books, though.

This actually mirrors my take on her fiction fairly well. She is by no means the most gripping author, nor is she the best at conveying complex ideas subtly.

[Aimless]

When I think of the "self-made man" I think specifically about what I see as the myth of the self-made man. That myth is not that every man is an island, and does not require than one spend one's entire life in a woodland cabin far from other people. Rather, it is the myth that disregards or trivialises those determinants of success--whatever that may be--that are not intimately associated with a person's conscious actions, talent/skill and character. I see this myth as a problem not only because it leads to a poorer understanding of our reality and of the problems--structural, social, individual eg. motivational--that beset us, but also because it's often the focus of a sense of superior worth/deservedness of an almost religious flavour. Moreover, it can be used to justify things like crappy education and non-existant childcare and other things that I personally believe hampers society and the individuals in it.

[RandBlade]

Do you not think Nessus, as I said above, that there is fundamental difference between attacking a philosophy that you can see in practice - and attacking a book behind it.

I have experience (not first hand) of communism and fascism from what I've seen and read, people I've spoken to, studying it etc.

I have read 1984 but not read read Mein Kampf, I am happy to attack fascism but I have never uttered a bad word against Mein Kampf. To do so, would be to merely betray my own ignorance.