"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."
Ayn Rand was unleashed on the world 99 years ago today, February 2, 1905. As a novelist and philosopher, the author of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged did more than any one other person in the last century to re-direct the basic philosophical discourse of mankind.
Her detractors ridicule her and throw invectives as at no other person in the history of letters. Socialists and altruists of all stripes hate her and her individualist philosophy like Dracula hates holy water. Consider it a sign of her power.
If you're not familiar with Ms. Rand, your best bet would be to read The Fountainhead, then take a deep breath and delve into Atlas Shrugged. They're like the Old Testament and the New Testament. I won't say that they have all the answers to life's problems, but she asks a lot of the right questions in ways that no one ever had before. Those who know will tell you that Atlas Shrugged is the most important book of the last century.
Besides any specific answers, I have found her framing of the basic questions of philosophy to be invaluable. In her presentation, there are five basic root philosophical issues:
1) Epistemology - How do we "know" things, and what does it mean when we say that we "know" something? This is the big wrap around question for everything else.
2) Metaphysics - Is there a god, and if so what is his nature?
3) Ethics - What is morality, right and wrong? By what standards of value should we live our lives?
4) Politics - What is government, where does it get it's legitimacy, and what should it do? Ethics is about what we SHOULD do. Politics is about what we should HAVE to do.
5) Aesthetics - What is beauty? What is art? How do you understand and appreciate art?
She had- to put it mildly- firm opinions on these questions, but just framing the questions has been as important to me personally as any of her specific answers.
Happy birthday Ayn, and thank you. Enjoy Valhalla. You've earned it.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Barry Stoller
Objectivism was a popular undergraduate 'philosophy' during the 1964
Barry Goldwater campaign. Although most Right-wing libertarians no
longer take Objectivism's founder, novelist Ayn Rand, seriously, the
presence of one-time Objectivist newsletter contributor Alan Greenspan
in the upper echelons of American finance does prevent her doctrine of
extreme laissez-faire from being relegated entirely to the dustbin of
history. Quite the contrary, a current push is on to repopularize Rand
in our 'free market,' merger-frenzied, stock-market-bubble, ideological
climate.
Objectivism is a supremacy doctrine, based on the allegation that 'the
source of production is man's mind' (Brander & Brander, Who Is Ayn
Rand?, Paperback Library 1964, p. 172), i.e. that since only 'smart
people' (scientists, entrepreneurs and artists) invent the technological
advancements and comforts enjoyed by civilization the 'stupid people'
(wage-workers) should be grateful to receive even the smallest downward
trickles of such benevolence.
Although it is a step up from Nietzsche's somewhat cruder---but more
literarily presented---doctrine (might is right), it is steeped in the
common 19th century lore that workers should only be paid what they
'would have' produced had no brilliant minds invented anything (i.e. the
entire industrial revolution apparatus).
(Such distinctions, of course, are impossible to make---other than
arbitrarily---because the industrial revolution irreversibly merged all
relations of labor and technology.)
The classic form of this idea (brains is might) was presented in the
novel Atlas Shrugged. In it, all the inventors and business men decided
that they were tired of taking crap from the wage-workers and
'collectivist' governments so they all went on strike. Needless to say,
without all the great minds illuminating life for all the inferior
'brute' laborers, civilization collapsed somewhat in the manner
anticipated by Charlie Manson (Bugliosi with Gentry, Helter Skelter: The
True Story of the Manson Murders, Norton 1974, p. 246).
Some problems with this assumption.
Division of labor (since the Industrial Revolution) has made the
production and circulation of goods contingent upon a vast,
interconnected workforce predicated upon low- or no-skill laborers
(assembly-line productivity) who are, predictably enough, paid 'what
they're worth.' Without these workers, however, even the most brilliant
inventions cannot be produced (crafts-era productivity), distributed, or
enjoyed by anyone. If everyone was brilliant, however, then no-one would
be 'qualified' for low-skill repetitious work, an essential predicate of
mass-production. Therefore, through the mechanism of supply and demand,
quality education is put out of the reach of most people, thus providing
a low-skill workforce as well as an ideological justification for paying
them so little.
Other tenets of Objectivist 'theory' assert the following points:
1. People deserve what they get. Biological determinism. Lots of
reference to basketball players.
2. If a worker is unhappy with his or her job, then he or she should
quit. If a consumer is unhappy with the conditions of a sale, then he or
she should refuse to buy it (including food, etc.). All trade is
voluntary, therefore equitable.
3. Only individual self-interest motivates superior performance.
(Businesses should forbid teamwork because it lowers the quality of
individual achievement.)
4. Collectivism is 'altruism,' not rationalization of resources social
and material. (This, along with the assertion that the Nazis were
'socialists,' is the cornerstone of Rand's criticism of Marxism.)(A
characteristic misquote occurs in Branden & Branden's Who Is Ayn Rand?
[op cit., p. 20], where Trotsky is cited as revising the traditional
communist principle 'who not work shall not eat' to 'who does not obey
shall not eat'; in actuality, this perversion is pointed out BY Trotsky
who criticized Stalin FOR initiating it [The Revolution Betrayed,
Doubleday, Dorin & co. 1937, p. 283].)
5. Altruism 'is the morality of cannibals devouring one another' (Rand,
'The Sanction of the Victims,' The Voice of Reason: Essays in
Objectivist Thought, New American Library 1988, p. 151). Rand was
especially consistent in associating cooperative behavior with
'primitive' behavior, thus drawing out racist components of corollary
supremacy beliefs. (See the 'Witch doctor' motif in For The New
Intellectual, Signet, 1961, pp. 10-62.)
6. Government intervention is simply a scheme for the 'undeserving weak'
members of society to seize the hard-earned rewards of those who work
harder, have more ability, are superior, etc. (Logical conclusion: U.S.
military presence in oil-rich lands therefore should be withdrawn; oil
companies should incur the natural free-market expenses of providing
their own militaries instead of forcing taxpayers to maintain operating
costs of oil companies.) This premise infers that the 'weak' are running
the country (ruling class).
7. Government intervention should be limited to protecting private
property (AFTER it has been violently wrested from the 'inferior' minds
of Native Americans, Mexicans, etc. and then codified as 'private
property' under 'civil law,' that is). This is a denial of dialectics
(social and economic evolution), which qualifies Rand as an absolutist.
8. 'For woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero worship---the
desire to look up to man' ('About a Woman President,'The Voice of
Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought, op. cit., p. 268).
9. Capitalism is presently corrupted by mixed economies (i.e. government
'safety nets' that coddle the 'undeserving weak' and 'stupid'), thus it
is an 'unknown ideal.' The assumption is that COMPLETE deregulation will
be best for everyone because free markets are the only way to insure
that each individual has 'choice' (Greenspan, 'The Assault on
Integrity,', Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, op. cit., pp. 118-21). Such
assumptions logically recommend the dismantling of Social Security,
public education, product liability, Federal Deposit Insurance and child
labor laws. Such assumptions are based on the belief that all social
interactions can, and should, have a market value.
10. If people aren't happy with the reigning economic structure, they
can either work harder (become 'men of ability') or leave the country
(as the King George of England once suggested to Washington, Jefferson,
Franklin, et al.).
The popularity of Objectivism was---and remains---largely confined to
universities and high schools in affluent areas. The reasons for this
are to found in Rand's tireless assertions that '[a] country without
intellectuals is like a body without a head'(ibid., p. 12). Not only are
such pronouncements flattering for students to hear but they are also
plausible because (middle- and upper-class) students, living in the
prosthetic environment of a campus, are not directly exposed to either
the production process or even the circulation sphere of
capitalism---and, therefore, have no way of knowing where, or how,
surplus value originates.
This is not to infer that Objectivism is characterized by rigorous
thinking. Quite the opposite. Ayn Rand had a conspicuous habit of
criticizing concepts she didn't understand. Notable examples are her
critiques of John Rawls' Theory of Justice and B.F. Skinner's Beyond
Freedom and Dignity. In the case of the former, she actually admitted
that she didn't even bother to read one word of the book (Rand, 'An
Untitled Letter,' Philosophy: Who Needs it, Signet 1984, p. 109). Both
were critiques of book reviews of the books she critiqued (Rand, 'An
Untitled Letter,' ibid., pp. 102-19; also, 'The Stimulus and the
Response,' ibid., pp. 137-61)---not exactly a study habit encouraged on
ANY American campus.
The strength of Rand's arguments come from the probability that her
(young, conservative) audience is even less acquainted with the ideas
that she first explains and then attacks.
In short, Objectivism is a sort of cliff note intellectualism for people
too busy, lazy, or stupid to actually be intellectuals. The
contradiction of a supremacy theory predicated upon the 'superiority of
smart people' that itself is characterized by and logical
inconsistencies, emotional reductionism, poor scholarship and, as a last
resort, suppression of dissent has, of course, delighted liberals and
other left-wingers for decades. For 'management' class (or wannabe
management-class) kids who subscribe to Objectivism (the 'challenge to
2,000-and-a-half years of cultural tradition'), it provides a
simplistic, narcissistic justification to expropriate as much surplus
value from workers as biologically possible and politically feasible.
2 - Chris Wilson
Well, sounds like Barry has got it all figured out. This took up WAY too much of my lunch break.
Think I'll go read about the Top-100 Metal Guitarists of all time.......
3 - SKI
Excellent synopsis.
4 - Chris Wilson
The synopsis was only fair and it rambles all over the damn place. It is abundantly clear Barry knows his Ayn Rand, but it strikes with the tact of a drunk lumberjack. The obsession alone causes me to seriously doubt his rather long-winded point.
Rand was a brilliant intellectual, whose work will always be debated. But one must absolutely read both "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged," if, for no other reason, than to be exposed to different ideas and beliefs. I do not consider that "lazy" or "stupid."
5 - duane
Interesting critique, Barry. On your point 3:
3. Only individual self-interest motivates superior performance. (Businesses should forbid teamwork because it lowers the quality of individual achievement.)
isn't it possible that individual self-interest can lead one to seek out collaborators and to engage in teamwork? Someone made an analogy with driving in heavy traffic. The problem is that drivers are supposedly selfish, cutting in and out of lanes, not allowing others to merge, etc. The counter is that if drivers truly were selfish -- pursuing an action that was to their own benefit, in this case, getting somewhere in the least amount of time -- they would cooperate with other drivers. That would increase the overall flow of traffic (fewer accidents, less gridlock, for example), thereby achieving the "selfish" goal of minimizing the drive time. Thus behavior that is superficially "altruistic" is actually "selfish." Teamwork wins the day, but is ultimately selfish.
6 - Barry Stoller
This is an essay I wrote and posted back in 1997. http://www.mcspotlight.org/cgi-bin/DR/message.pl/capitalism?mID=17918
Chris says: 'Rand was a brilliant intellectual.' Yet her 'reviews' of Skinner and Rawls demonstrates she opined on literary efforts she failed to even read. Case closed on her 'intellectual' abilities there.
Duane asks 'isn't it possible that individual self-interest can lead one to seek out collaborators and to engage in teamwork?' I would say, in brief, that there are many forms of motivations in the world. Rand thought there was only one - $. I'd suggest a basic reading of Skinner and Rawls to point to other conceptions.
7 - Chris Wilson
Barry,
Did Ayn Rand turn down a date with you or something? Everyone has dirt if obsessively investigated. Hell, even Dr. Martin Luther King plagiarized some of his work in college - but does that mean we should "close the case" on his ideas and beliefs even if they run counter to what you believe?
We can argue until we are blue in the face about Rand's beliefs, but for you to argue - and in a very long winded way I might add - that she is NOT an intellectual on the basis of a couple of mediocre criticisms, is sadly misguided and closed minded, to say the very least......
Her work is fascinating, her talent extraordinary and her ideals extremely thought-provoking. I have read Mein Kampf and SCUM Manifesto. Now, I do not believe the political ideals trumpeted in either works, but they are thought-provoking never-the-less, detailing social attitudes and beliefs different from our own.
Open your mind and stop grinding lumps of coal into diamonds....
8 - Mac Diva
Thanks for an excellent contribution, Barry. Al Barger continually posts Ayn Rand propaganda to the site. He is proud to claim her, and Mencken, as the only writers he has ever read. I appreciate the reminder she was equally fatuous.
In short, Objectivism is a sort of cliff note intellectualism for people too busy, lazy, or stupid to actually be intellectuals.
An excellent description of Barger, as well as Rand. One of my complaints about him is that he refuses to do even minimal research. Other people have noticed his laziness, too.
I believe there are other aspects of Objectivism that deserve our attention:
*It resembles the Christian doctrine of the elect. In the doctrine, those who are naturally deserving have been chosen by God. In Objectivisim, they have been chosen by nature. In both, the proof of superiority is the possession of material goods and power.
*Intellectuals are rarely the most successful people in society. Many are actually wage slaves at universities and corporations who turn over their ideas and inventions in return for job security. The most successful people, if money and power equal success, are persons of inherited wealth who exercise control over the political process. (An example is the Bush dynasty.)
*Many inventions are not brilliant. In fact, often the appeal of an item may simply be that people desire it, not that it serves any useful purpose. Inventiveness in a contemporary context may have more to do with producing better ways for people to use what we have than inventing new products. Incremental improvement of existing useful products seems to be the norm.
9 - Phillip Winn
MD, I have nothing to say about Rand, but you've grossly misstated the Christian doctrine of predestination. The point of election is that it is not based in any way on whether or not the recipient is "naurally deserving." In fact, none of the elect are "naturally deserving," that's somewhat the point.
As a further clarification, the "proof of superiority" for the Christian elect are that they serve, not lead. That they humble themselves, not hold themselves to be superior. Your second error flows naturally from your first, since those who are "naturally deserving" would naturally be arrogant, while those who recognize their own unworthiness should spend their lives showing gratitude for their election.
I realize this is a thread about Ayn Rand, but the misuse of a doctrine I've studied extensively caught my eye.
Thanks for reading.
10 - Mac Diva
I am referring to the Calvinist version of the doctrine of the elect. Early American Protestants looked for evidence of election, i.e., being chosen by God for salvation regardless of behavior. They found that evidence in success. The reasoning is that if someone has been gifted with the fruits of society, God must favor that person. So, the economic theory of capitalism and the Darwinistic belief in survival of the most fit were merged with this theological justification. I am not saying the doctrine is explicit in American thinking. If polled, I doubt most Americans would recognize the phrase. But, it is an underpinning of much of what people believe.
11 - Phillip Winn
MD, if you knew me better, you would not seek to educate me on Calvinism. I spend most days discussing the intricacies of Calvin's Institutes with other Calvinists. I don't mean to come off as arrogant here, but you've stumbled across one subject I happen to know extremely well.
I assure you that your understanding of Calvin's doctrine of the elect is way off. It reminds me of Crichton's take on chaos theory in the way it touches on some of the same points, and uses some of the same words, but comes at things so completely backwards that nobody who actually understands the theory would recognize it.
Similarly, election is not identified by success, and early American protestants did not tie the two together. Many of them, in fact, believed that the suffering they went through during harsh New England winters was as much evidence of their election as anything else. You're clearly confusing different periods of American history, and still missing the point of the doctrine.
During the civil war, for example, the Presbyterian belief in election was extremely popular, but it still was not identified by success. Jackson is one popular example of a man who found great comfort in believing that he was saved by God, and further that the very moment and means of his death was fixed. But he did not believe that would ultimately lead to military success, since he recognized that their were Calvinists on both sides of the battle. He believed only that God's will would be done, and that he didn't have to worry about dying because there was nothing he could do to change things one way or the other.
The favor of God is not election, and election is not the sole result of the favor of God.
Though there is a popular unacknowledged belief among Americans that success is a sign of God's favor, this is not the result of the doctrine of election. In fact, the most vocal proponents of the idea that success is a measure of God's favor are strictly Arminian, rejecting Calvin's formulations outright.
I could spend a lot of time explaining why I believe this is so, and how it naturally follows, but I suspect you'll want to stick to a subject about which you know something, and Rand is the subject of this post.
12 - Mac Diva
Okay. I now have additional information.
I still wonder why so many people ascribe almost holy status to the wealthy, though. I've never understood that. Considering that many rich people inherit their wealth, it is not as if they are actually observed doing anything outstanding.
13 - dan
I have only read Anthem, a small fry compared to the rest of her books, but I practically swallowed it whole. I have been meaning to read Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead, and I appreciate the reminder.
14 - Mark Saleski
i useta have a copy of The Fountainhead in college...it was propping up the back corner of my couch.
no, wait..maybe it was a maxwell house coffee can.
i could be mistaken.
15 - Jim Carruthers
How does a crazy old lady who has inspired several generations of pretentious little pricks amount to a major direction in philosophy? Really, please 'splain.
Because it's all bullshit. No matter how much you argue, it's all bullshit.
Rationalisation by pretentious losers.
16 - Jim Carruthers
Oh jeez, I just realized, when is L. Ron Hubbard's birthday? That's when the mysterious Barger is going to strike with his nonsense again!
Alert Chief Gordon! Send up the bat-signal. We can prevent bullshit while there is still time!
17 - Mac Diva
I get the feeling Barger (currently busy posting racy titles to attract visitors to his blog) is just looking for rationalization of his own views. Rand made self-centeredness into something to celebrate within her little cult. That appeals to Barger like catnip to a toothless tiger.
18 - Jim Carruthers
The best guide to the "thoughts" of Rand are in Matt Ruff's "Sewer, Gas & Electic" which is a pastiche of one of that old bat's books. In Ruff's book, Rand is a genie in a gas lamp, and she just gives stupid, useless advice.
Silly old fool.
19 - Al Barger
Stoller at least makes an attempt at an argument, but look at what kind of nonsense he's offering. For starters, comparing Rand to Charlie Manson is dumber than a sack of rocks. Rand is the apostle of business and achievement, Manson the evilest imaginable incarnation of a dirty hippy. Rand had an apocalyptic type theme in one of her novels, therefore... That's just silly- yet he's citing Bugliosi's book- complete with page reference, like part of a bibliography.
Accusing her of "drawing out racist components" of other belief systems may be even more ludicrous. Rand may be the foremost EVER philosophical proponent of individualism. You just cannot legitimately get even a HINT of racism or tribalism from her thinking. You might as well accuse MLK of being in cahoots with the KKK. It wouldn't be any stupider.
Obviously, Mr. Stoller feels indicted in some way by Rand's words. The desperate, hysterical dishonesty of his attacks strikes me as comic at some point. To put it nicely, I find it difficult to believe that anyone could read Rand and honestly come up with anything vaguely like what he's describing.
Does Carruthers think that simply hurling a couple of curse words at a distinguished philosopher somehow constitutes a refutation?
I do not take Rand as gospel- though admittedly she does sort of invite such adulation. Some of her ideas are GOLD, some less valuable to me. There are certainly significant legitimate arguments to make against some of her ideas, though.
However, it's going to take someone besides Diva. Beyond anything else, she doesn't seem capable of understanding. She doesn't seem to comprehend, for example, that there are significant differences between libertarian thought (dominant in my mind) versus conservative thought.
Hell, she can't seem to grasp the profound difference between thoroughly atheistic Objectivism versus Calvinism.
20 - Mac Diva
Someone needs to tell the far, far Right that 'libertarianism,' which much of it has embraced, is anathema to extreme conservatism. Not long ago we had a newfound pal of Barger's, Dan Precht, demonstrate my point by coming to Blogcritics and expressing views that were about the freedom of individuals alright, at the expense of other individuals. My favorite of his inane comments was his assertion that Rosa Parks deserved to be beaten by thugs for her role in the civil rights movement. I believe it tells us a lot about the kind of persons running for office as libertarians. They often farther Right than their Republican opponents. And, they see nothing wrong with whupping on little ole ladies.
I've since revisited the issue of the relationship between libertarianism and the neo-Confederate movement at Silver Rights.
There is a significant overlap between people who are neo-Confederates and those who consider themselves libertarians. Indeed, the relationship is such that some 'libertarian' think tanks, such as the Ludwig von Mises Institute and Lew Rockwell's have become neo-Confederate bastions. The basic argument of proponents of this viewpoint is that the current government is too intrusive. That's typically libertarian. But, the next step pushes the envelope. Not only is the government too intrusive, according to neo-Confederate libertarians, it needs to be overthrown. Alternatively, some states, usually described as being in the Southern United States, should secede. After the secession, they should create a society similar to that of the pre-Civil War South, which was an ideal republic, they say. Among the persons who hold those beliefs dear is neo-Confederate/libertarian spokesman Clyde Wilson.
You can read more about the relationship right here at Blogcritics. The far, far Right is using the rhetoric of 'individual rights' much the same way it has used 'state' rights,' as a pretext for depriving other people of their rights. The telling thing is that much of the use of the libertarian label is coming from them. My former blogrollee Julian Sanchez insists there is a more defensible form of libertarianism. He may be right, but it is this reactionary version that is growing.
21 - Mark Saleski
She doesn't seem to comprehend, for example, that there are significant differences between libertarian thought (dominant in my mind) versus conservative thought.
maybe we could use an al barger post on exactly what you think this difference is. i'm certain that there is one, but it's sometimes tough to figure it out when your commentary is sprinkled with stuff like stupid liberal, commie, pinko, etc.
and i'm not arguing that you should tone down all bargerisms...man, if you start sounding like flanagan i'm gonna go out and whack my head on the driveway.
22 - Tim Hall
I stated using the term "Anarcho-Fascist" to describe certain right-wingers who describe themselves as libertarians. When you boil fascism and self-centred libertarianism down to their basest elements, you do find a lot of overlap, such as:
* Worship of raw power
* Contempt for the 'weak'
* Fetishisation of violence
23 - Eric Olsen
While thoroughly eschewing * Worship of raw power
* Contempt for the 'weak'
* Fetishisation of violence, I believe Rand's central thesis of "enlightened individualism" is absolutely at the core of a) the good life, b) successful capitalism, c) successful democracy.
Take care of you and yours first - while always keeping an eye on the big picture and being mindful that you are part of the big picture - without being selfish or greedy, and everything else will fall into place.
A difficult balance? Sure, but who said it's supposed to be easy?
24 - Tim Hall
"Anarcho-Fascism" doesn't come from Rand's own writings, but from the internet screeds and rants by some of those who claim to be her followers.
They don't seem to be interested in any kind balance between personal well-being and the bigger picture. They certainly *don't* believe in democracy; that isn't compatible with their vision of an intellectual elite lording it over the servile and impoverished masses - one of their favourite slogans is "Democracy is a sheep and two wolves voting on what to have for dinner".
25 - Al Barger
Diva, I do try SO hard to be understanding, and to have a sense of humor about your foolishness, but then you go back to just directly making up malicious lies, such as these comments about nice ol' Dan Precht, and by extension all libertarians: his assertion that Rosa Parks deserved to be beaten by thugs for her role in the civil rights movement. I believe it tells us a lot about the kind of persons running for office as libertarians. They often farther Right than their Republican opponents. And, they see nothing wrong with whupping on little ole ladies.
NO libertarian believes or would say anything even vaguely like that. You goddam know better than that nonsense when you say it. It's why you have no credibility with anyone, nor really any friends- though Rand knows I try.
Again, Dan noted that Rosa Parks had been assaulted. His point was not to say that this was good or acceptable, but more as an example to point out that criminality in the black community is a much bigger problem for black folks than anything whitey is doing to them.
What exactly do you think you are accomplishing by your continuing lying foolishness?