I wasn’t sourced for this New York Times report (to the best of my knowledge), but I might as well have been:
The enduring popularity of Ayn Rand bewilders her many detractors, who complain that her writing is melodramatic, heavy-handed and intellectually bereft.
All adjectives I might employ to describe Rand, whose economic and social “philosophies” are unsound by any epistemological, psychological, anthropological and plain ol’ logical estimation. Worse are her followers, who evince behaviors common to all cults, from sun-worship to Scientology. I could start with the self-centered core of the Objectivist belief system, which is ultimately not dissimilar to the Social Darwinist view of humanity’s place in the world. (To be fair, Rand placed Social Darwinism in the “junkyard of philosophy.”) Yet any “Might Makes Right”-style organizational outlook is destined to be but a footnote in the evolution of our species — that is, if we are to survive.
Rand fails to account for numerous factors in the human motivational-behavioral spectrum, from phases of early development to purely biological inheritances like the effect of testosterone on societal development and resource management. Far from being a distillation of naturally occurring phenomena, Randianism conveniently cherry picks those traits which strengthen her case for short-term, reward-based thinking — handily slapping the word “reason” in front of her toxic admonishments to make them seem less aberrant.
Objectivism has already been subject to a vast array of academic and economic criticism, so I’m not gonna get into that, but I can point you in the right direction. Instead, I’ll focus on what bothers me personally about this pseudo-scientific religion. As an elitist who is intimately familiar with thinkers ranging from Nietzsche to “Ragnar Redbeard,” one would think I’d be naturally inclined to sop up the “individualist” nonsense proffered by Rand and her followers. Even casting aside for a moment Objectivism’s intellectual failings, I am troubled by the mixed messages telegraphed by those in the cult. Their desire for a “pure” form of liberty — expressed in a relentless pursuit of “undistorted” capital markets and moral absolutism — is really a kind of laissez-faire fascism. The Nazis surely wouldn’t have stopped at killing Jews; that group having been exterminated, Hitler would’ve purged any other ethnicity he deemed insufficiently “Aryan.” The Objectivists’ nihilistic willingness to let entire global systems collapse, causing undue suffering in a quest for ever-purer markets, is hardly “noble” or “morally sound” — it’s evidence of the willful capital exploitation of human misery.
But it gets even more absurd. As I mentioned above, I consider myself a natural born elitist, and have no inherent problem with defiant nonconformism. Yet the psychological orientation of most Objectivists I’ve encountered is alarmingly similar to closeted Right Wing homosexuals. Objectivists refuse to put on the yoke for any external agency, yet the cult of personality surrounding Rand (and Rand’s own fawning fetish for cold-hearted “Men of Industry”) means that they never allow themselves what they so desperately desire — that is, to submit to a group, character or set of ideals more potent than their own. Like the Christianity Rand so abhors, Objectivism has become a slave religion, yet, like the Nine Inch Nails song, the slaves imagine themselves to be free!
Now, I know a thing or two about psychological dominance and submission (I’m obviously a dom), so I’m bothered by Objectivism’s lack of clarity in the assignment of roles. That’s why I’m always trying to convince Objectivists that what they really want is a master! Of course, this gets me nowhere, because the entire framework of the cult is based on the rejection of any authority other than one’s Ego. Round-and-round we go.
But let’s take it back to the world of finance and industry, shall we? One of Rand’s earliest converts was the economic Crypt Keeper himself, Alan Greenspan, who, in the aftermath of a near-global financial collapse, DISAVOWED A LIFETIME OF CAPITAL PHILOSOPHIES based almost entirely on Rand’s concept of the free market. “The system was absurd,” Greenspan said in April 2008. “It’s my fault. The system was stupid, a failure.” So why do Rand’s adherents (and their even more wishy-washy descendants, the Libertarians) keep insisting that what we need is more laissez-faire?
The reason I’m continuing to shout to the rafters about the near-criminal wrongness of Objectivism and the utter lack of political utility that is Libertarianism is because I anticipate a strong negative reaction to the current administration. This backlash will be driven not by culture war-propagating rednecks, but rather young, collegiate neo-neo-free marketeers. I’m hardly a fan of many of Obama’s policies, but we mustn’t go backwards. I’m currently putting some energy into crafting a manifesto for a viable “Middle Way,” which will hopefully take the best of the current trend towards behavioral economics and greater cross-system cohesion. If I can manage to solicit enough opinions, design a credible framework and explore funding models, I’ve set myself a not-quite-a-joke goal of founding my own think tank by 2015. (Calling all progressive researchers and economists!) Until then, I feel it necessary to do everything in my admittedly limited power to depose the remnants of thoroughly discredited mindsets that stand in the way of progress.
End Transmission.
August 2nd, 2009 at 7:06 pm
@ casey
I see you’re at it again, you elitist old reprobate you.
What with Freudian references galore and admissions to being a “dom” and alluding to Objectivists having a penchant for secretly being dominated, this shabby smear-job of yours comes over more as a subtle solicitation for a bondage session than a critique of Rands ideas.
Recognising that a smear is an accusation without particulars or proof, let’s address the tired old leftist rehash of Greemspans admission to the failure of the free market (perhaps the only point worth addressing in your lame contumely)
While it’s true that Greenspan was once an advocate for Objectivism and free markets, his very acceptance of orchestrating a planned economy by holding the reigns on the Fed proves his treason to the principles of Laissez faire .
As Dr Yaron Brook noted
“Alan Greenspan’s entire tenure at the Federal Reserve was one devoted to distorting market outcomes in the pervasively controlled financial markets, including the mortgage market. The Fed by its nature wields enormous power over the market as it dictates the money supply and interest rates, which in turn determine lending, borrowing, and bank leverage throughout the economy. Early in Greenspan’s tenure, some expected the onetime opponent of the Fed and supporter of a gold standard to minimize the Fed’s distortion of markets. Instead, Greenspan became our Manipulator-in-Chief, repeatedly inflating the money supply and artificially lowering interest rates to allegedly magnify prosperity. Further, he voiced no substantial opposition to related market-distorters such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (which incentivized lenders to make trillions in loans that they wouldn’t have made on a free market) and the cartel of government-supported rating agencies (whose absurd models gave AAA ratings to mortgage-backed securities).
Thus, when Greenspan speaks, he does so not as the voice of a (non-existent) free market in finance and housing, but as the voice of government central-planning–a voice with every incentive to blame the market rather than the Fed’s market-distorting policies.”
More here: http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=21857
As for your alleged plan to “depose” of the mindsets blocking progress by spawning a “middle of the road think tank”, may I suggest you repair to this advice from Galts speech in Atlas Shrugged
“The fence you have been straddling for two hours—while hearing my words and seeking to escape them—is the coward’s formula contained in the sentence: ‘But we don’t have to go to extremes!’ The extreme you have always struggled to avoid is the recognition that reality is final, that A is A and that the truth is true. A moral code impossible to practice, a code that demands imperfection or death, has taught you to dissolve all ideas in fog, to permit no firm definitions, to regard any concept as approximate and any rule of conduct as elastic, to hedge on any principle, to compromise on any value, to take the middle of any road. By extorting your acceptance of supernatural absolutes, it has forced you to reject the absolute of nature. By making moral judgments impossible, it has made you incapable of rational judgment. A code that forbids you to cast the first stone, has forbidden you to admit the identity of stones and to know when or if you’re being stoned.
“The man who refuses to judge, who neither agrees nor disagrees, who declares that there are no absolutes and believes that he escapes responsibility, is the man responsible for all the blood that is now spilled in the world. Reality is an absolute, existence is an absolute, a speck of dust is an absolute and so is a human life. Whether you live or die is an absolute. Whether you have a piece of bread or not, is an absolute. Whether you eat your break or see it vanish into a looter’s stomach, is an absolute.
“There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who shoves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube.
Also note that any attempts to “depose” of me for being someone with that kind of “anti-progress” mindset will be met with the appropriate resistance
(“depose” you say, and you have the nerve to call Objectivists fascists)
August 2nd, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Why was Rand such a shitty writer? Answer me that, and I’ll engage with the remainder of your retort. And don’t give me the “English as a second language bit.”
Nice to have you darkening our doorstep again, though.
PS: would you consider the above excerpt a “Fair Use?”
August 2nd, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Oh, and for the readers, please meet Hilton — the only known Objectivist with a sense of humor! (It’s a bit underdeveloped, but perhaps we can help with that. Also, maybe we can get him to start using punctuation.)
August 2nd, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Go here and extract for me just one excerpt of shitty writing on her behalf Casey..
http://aynrandlexicon.com/book/conceptual.html
You of all people seem to understand the art of the smear better than most, and what could be more damaging than accusing her of “shitty writing” , especially for those unable to disprove the validity of her ideas.
and yes..that excerpt from Galts speech was fair use, and all the fairer for attempting to wake progressive zombies from their wet dreams.
August 2nd, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Now people
Meet Casey..the only progressive moderator who has the courage to take as well as he gives without diving for the “moderate” button on his control panel… a hat tip to you Casey
That is unless I’m wrong only because Casey doesn’t have access to the “kill” button on this blog
August 2nd, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Forgive me if I don’t find that link astounding; I articulated a majority of those thoughts when I was 17. Then I grew up.
By the way, the Greenspan business was pure Objectivist-bait. Anything of substance you care to refute?
I know there is no “fair use” in the UK — you have moral rights. Still, given the ideals of “ownership” put forth by Rand, I believe it’s a legitimate question.
PS: the nascent humorist in you may find this amusing (or not):
http://mcsweeneys.net/2008/11/20tucker.html
Cheers!
August 2nd, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Casey:
You ask: “Why was Rand such a shitty writer?” Well, not everyone agrees with your assessment that Rand was a “shitty writer”, which you assert without even the smallest shred of proof to support your conclusion. I would suggest to anyone reading this who is unfamiliar with her work, that they get a copy of Rand’s fiction and judge for themselves the caliber of the character development, the emotional content of the descriptive passages, the plot integration, or the depth of the themes explored. Or pick up one of the numerous collections of her non-fiction essays and see for yourself if her writing is not one of the clearest presentation of fact and analysis you have encountered.
There is so much wrong with the essay above that it is difficult to know where to begin.
You write: “Rand fails to account for numerous factors in the human motivational-behavioral spectrum…” I counter that it is you who fails to comprehend that Rand was thinking and writing as a philosopher, not some sort of social scientist. She identified the essence of what makes us human and is our principal means of survival: our ability for rational, conceptualized thought. In her fiction, she then dramatizes the consequences of relying upon or abandoning our use of this unique capacity. She also deals significantly with the issue of motivation, building a comprehensive theory of ethics that is grounded upon the fundamental value of existence: life. I really love your oh so traditional means of argumentation which relies upon substituting unfounded smears and condescension in place of reasoned arguments. For example, you write: “… handily slapping the word ‘reason’ in front of her toxic admonishments to make them seem less aberrant.” Well, you really drive home you point there. Wow! That’s a powerful observation. Anyone who appeals to reason is obviously a crackpot and no further attention is warranted. Or how about your comments about Objectivism being a “pseudo-scientific religion”. Nice one there. No need to justify your god-like pronouncements with any reference to facts.
You state: “The Objectivists’ nihilistic willingness to let entire global systems collapse, causing undue suffering in a quest for ever-purer markets, is hardly ‘noble’ or ‘morally sound’ — it’s evidence of the willful capital exploitation of human misery.” Well, any reader would certainly have to guess exactly to what you are referring here, since you do not bother to identify any specific thoughts or actions by Objectivists which lead you to this conclusion. Without any willingness to debate the subject with you, I would say that I am convinced that we hold radically different understandings of the nature of science of economics, and that most Objectivists identify the major global economic problems we currently face, as well as those of the past, as a by-product of government regulation and intervention into the market mechanism. We believe that conditions would be much improved if the government got out of the way and allowed the natural correcting mechanisms of a completely free market to work. We believe that taking this step would improve the conditions for all men and women on earth and would not lead to “global systems collapse” and an “exploitation of human misery”. Now, this topic is an important one and certainly deserves considerable study. But I find your statement to be completely without merit, and your characterization of Objectivists is truly offensive. You really do not know what you are talking about.
You are right to be concerned about the political future of socialist ideas promoted by Obama. Already, people are waking up to the realities of this agenda, seeing (once again!) just how destructive statism can be. And it is a problem of both the right as well as the left. Both political parties have been working overtime to expand the role of government and erode the rights of individual citizens. And it is Rand, and Objectivism as a philosophy, that can take credit for most clearly identifying the fundamental issue we face: collectivism vs. individualism, or to phrase it another way, slavery vs. freedom.
You have already identified your position on this matter when you write above about “‘individualist’ nonsense”. I stand firmly in the other camp, promoting the individual’s right to control their own life and set their own destiny. I defend the rule of law, but fight every effort of the state to regulate our lives. Your idea of “progress” appears to be one where you, in your superior wisdom, sit in judgment on how I, and others, are to be allowed to conduct our lives. And like the heroes of Rand’s novels, I refuse to sanction you any right to any part of my life.
Good luck on your prospects for establishing a think tank. Is the level of analysis presented here indicative of what we can expect in the future?
Regards,
–
C. Jeffery Small
August 2nd, 2009 at 10:50 pm
@casey “then I grew up” …please illucidate me as to which of her ideas you rejected (and your reasons of course..unless it was for the sake of being more fashionable as is the case with 99% of conformist liberal schmoos who regard the need to belong as being way more important than the need to think and judge)
You asked “Anything of substance you care to refute”
No…you didn’t offer anything of substance worth refuting
As for the parodey of Rands work…no, I dont find it funny.
Humor is not unconditionally good and is mostly used as a smokescreen for moral cowardice, but if you had asked me if I find Chomskies claptrap funny…now that would be a whole different story, wouldn’t it?
August 3rd, 2009 at 4:42 am
As a contrarian gesture, I object to the dismissal of sun worship as a cult categorized alongside Scientology. Let me remind you that the Sun is the most widespread and traditional deity figure the world has ever known, visible in the sky for all to see. And I point out that it was not science that declared sun worship to be primitive and ignorant, but a jealous church, which also made such concepts taboo to science. Should you wish to explore this non-novel but fogotten concept, there is a new book out on the subject at http://www.sunofgod.net, written by this author, as it happens.
August 3rd, 2009 at 7:26 am
I will (and only) apologize for comparing sun-worship to Scientology. Alas, my love of aliteration has blinded me to the glory of the Apollonian.
I’ll deal with the squirrelly Objectivists once I have some coffee.
August 3rd, 2009 at 8:00 am
No, Mr. Small, our readers don’t have to take my word about the quality of Rand’s fiction writing — there are numerous critical assessments (let’s start with one of the first) attesting to her hamfistedness.
“I counter that it is you who fails to comprehend that Rand was thinking and writing as a philosopher, not some sort of social scientist.”
By calling Rand a philosopher you’re being far to kind. She was a utopian, just like me. Rand repeatedly claimed that the goal of her writing was “the projection of an ideal man” and that her philosophy was merely “a necessary means to that end.”
Her actual grasp of philosophy seemed to start at Aristotle and skip everything in between up to Nietzsche. She spent a bit of energy dismissing Kant, while subsequently ripping him off. As mentioned on the excellent Objectivism-Criticism blog, Rand wrote the following:
“You know the best example I could give—perhaps this will help. If you brought a dog or a cat into this room, it would be aware of everything that we see here. It would also see the room, the objects, and the people. What it would never be able to grasp is, “I am conscious of this room,” although that fact is inherent in its perception.”
Then what is the difference between that idea and Kant’s idea of apperception? Kant:
“But all empirical consciousness has a necessary relation to a transcendental consciousness which precedes all special experience, namely, the consciousness of myself as original apperception. It is therefore absolutely necessary that in my knowledge all consciousness should belong to a single consciousness, that of myself.”
I enjoy how you folks always move to a defensive crouch by saying, “There is so much wrong with the essay above that it is difficult to know where to begin.” Then you simply regurgitate Randian talking points.
You’re right: Rand wasn’t a social scientist (nor was she a philosopher, but I don’t have time to keep flogging that sad, subjectivist horse). Had she been a social scientist, she may have had a grasp of the behavioral-motivational spectrum I mention above, which necessarily includes legion factors — historical, developmental, biological, environmental — that affect the organizational and hierarchical behavior of our species. She might have found as much “natural” evidence for collective action as she did for greed-based behavior. Or at least, she’d have begun to uncover the hidden biological/cultural hand shaping what she views as Bold and Noble action. Given the time at which she wrote, it’s not surprising that she’d have such a blind spot. But it doesn’t mean that you have to follow her off the cliff to irrelevance.
In regard to my statement that “the Objectivists’ nihilistic willingness to let entire global systems collapse, causing undue suffering in a quest for ever-purer markets, is hardly ‘noble’ or ‘morally sound’ — it’s evidence of the willful capital exploitation of human misery,” well, how about I excerpt a comment from one of your fellow Objectivists (the Godlike John Donahue) left here last week:
“We realize it is only the producers “holding on” that keeps you from seeing the hole down to hell.
So go ahead, finish the job. All the sooner the thing will collapse.”
This to me seems consistent at least, with “Atlas” — let the leeches destroy themselves and society, and hide like cowards in our Capitalist Fortress of Solitude until we can emerge as the Ubermensch who will rule through superior, greed-based productivity and “kinky” S&M. Go ahead, read the fucking book again and tell me that’s not the plot. I think Charlie Manson had a similar idea with “Helter Skelter.” At least you guys aren’t waiting for Hale-Bopp. Or are you?
My favorite part of your comment:
“Your idea of ‘progress’ appears to be one where you, in your superior wisdom, sit in judgment on how I, and others, are to be allowed to conduct our lives.”
Your God is dead. Might as well follow me, bub.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:04 pm
“I defend the rule of law, but fight every effort of the state to regulate our lives.” – C. Jeffery Small
That cracked me up to no end, C. Jeffery Small. I know, I know – hit me with a 2,000-word essay on what you meant by “the rule of law”, C. Jeffery Small. [Yaawwn.] While you’re at it, get yourself a new name to mentally masturbate by, because C. Jeffery Small ain’t makin’ you’re intellectual johnson any bigger.
August 4th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
What I’ve taken away from this little experiment is that arguing w/Objectivists is a bit like arguing with comic store guys about who’s better, Batman or Superman. You just end up getting pulled into their sad, sexless, fantasy-obsessed lives.
That reminds me: C. Jeffery Small’s statement “like the heroes of Rand’s novels, I refuse to sanction you any right to any part of my life,” is actually awesome. Does he wear a cape?
“Like the heroes of the Dragonlance saga, I use my wizard skills to protect all the Noble races of Krynn from the Dragonarmies of Ansalon!”
August 4th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Casey you poseur you
You havent argued nor won a single point mate…like a pragmatic politician you’ve assumed you’re in safe water by rehashing tired disproven old crap from Rands enemies who have no valid refutation of her ideas other than slamming her on subjective grounds which cannot be proven nor disproven.
The same counts for your reliance on the collective for moral ammo that proclaims it as being OK and “progressive” to empower other “progressive” politicians to steal from the producers and redistribute the loot on behalf of the say so of the majority, i.e. looters (in exchange for your votes of course)
The reason Rand has so many enemies is that her ideas are making the producers aware of how they are being scammed, and that her ideas have some of them already going on strike against this notion of becoming Milch Cows to the majority..for no reason other than that they are the majority.
Ayn Rand fought for the smallest minority on earth..the individual. This battle should have been won with the collapse of socialism/communism wherever it was implemented, but unfortunately the envy of the looters in regard to those who are more industrious in a free economy were allowed to respawn and mobilise from behind the culturally inherited lie of “the greater public good” (as if the good of some take moral precedence over the good of others)
The revolution to dispose of mob induced slavery has begun, and even though it will take some time, the individual will win. (after all there are so many of you)
Until then as I said…enjoy the ride..it’s almost over.
August 4th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
I assume no safe water, Hilton. But I do find it disturbing that you need to invoke apocalyptic scenarios in order to “prove” the efficacy of your suppositions. Al Queda, anyone?
As an exercise in logicical argumentation, your points are useless to debate due to an a priori assumption that no market is ever free enough of “distortions” for your individualist utopia to emerge. No blood can possibly be on your hands, because, like other cultists, you reject any negotiation with that which fails to conform with your borrowed ideology. This is the realm of the fantasist, for whom I have no use beyond entertainment.
Now take a deep breath and read it again — you’re a seemingly bright enough lot to comprehend the mirror I hold before you.
August 7th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
I don’t think that you need to go further (for a dismantlement of this so-called “philosophy” than to look at the scene with the security guard in “Atlas Shrugged” and see that Ayn Rand justifies murder. Once you subscribe to any philosophy (objective acceptance of facts aside, even) you have gone over to the dark side; that is to say, the side that sees your fellow *equal* human beings as less valuable than yourself. That way lies hate, murder, and genocide. There can be and never will be justification for such stances. These airheaded celebrities just can’t see logical conclusions. Frankly, I doubt many have actually read her books.
Personally, though, I’m very disappointed to see Brad Pitt among their company. In his interviews he has always struck me as a kind of sectarian Buddhist–which I think is an excellent stance. I hope the magazine is reaching.