Johann Hari: Ayn Rand Another L. Ron Hubbard

[Sheridan]

Come now, NineOneFour.

It’s years since I read Rand, with some notions quite rational (although not particularly original), others absurd, but since when do we get all emotional or rabid over 'ideas' merely because we don’t happen to like or agree with them?

[Spinozasgalt]

"Proper context"

Uh-huh, riiiigghhhhht.

Child murdering, okay until brought out into the ugly spotlight of reality, and then we need to "read her journals" to put it into the proper context.

So you actually think Ayn Rand was supporting child murder in some way? O....kay.

Should we also read the journals of Ann Coulter to put her psychotic ravings into the "proper context"?

No, that's not really the same thing. The ravings themselves are not journal entries, nevertheless, it would still be irresponsible to not seek out their proper context.

[NineOneFour]

Come now, NineOneFour.

It’s years since I read Rand, with some notions quite rational (although not particularly original), others absurd, but since when do we get all emotional or rabid over 'ideas' merely because we don’t happen to like or agree with them?

Yeah, I know, the murder of children is no biggie, right?

[Fact-Man]

Really, how about the fact that she is roundly dissed by many WHO HAVE READ AND DO COMPREHEND HER THEOLOGY AND FIND IT MORALLY REPUGNANT?

If there is one "salute" for Rand......it's her "fuck you" attitude towards conformity...
For that I thank her.....

Oh, wow, great, so, she's in the same camp as Hitler, Che, and Pee Wee Herman. Woo hoo.

It's a sad fookin' tale, isn't it?

I'm caused to wonder that if MacDoc needed Rand to be inspired against conformity, what the hell were his parents teaching him?

I don't see Rand as anything more than a passionate rejector of the mundane and safe, the expected and the rigid that was so much a part of life in the 40s and 50s.

The 40's were mundane and safe? When there was a world war underway and people in many places were getting the shit bombed out of them and America ws in the midst of suffering 500,00 casualties? Safe?

I myself was in a combat situation in 1950 that ran for 16 lousy months, getting shot at daily and mortared every other day or night, losing comrades left and right, and you call that safe? Mundane?

I've got news, you have no clue, Bubba.

Safe and mundane my ass.

For her celebration of Frank Lloyd Wright in The Fountainhead and her empowering me and many others to dump the socially expected and set my own path and limits I am grateful to her.

What the hell were your parents teaching you if not these things?

All of us who were born in the Great Depression learned one thing clear, that we had to take care of ourselves and constantly guard against ripoffs that came at us like a plague from the business world and that conformity was for idiots and layabouts.

And then, while your hero was sitting on her ass writing a book, we went off to war, the whole damned nation went to war, from GI Joe to Rosie the Riveter, and where the hell was Miss Rand? What did she contribute to winning that war? Anything? I dare say nothing.

We were busting our butts to win a war and defeat some nasty enemies and she ... she was typing.

And no sooner was that war wrapped up we fought another in which 54,246 American servicemen and women lost their lives. And I was damned near one of them on too many occasions to count, or to pleasantly remember.

And after all our sacrifices and sufferings and pains and losses and the Goddamned cold of a Korean winter, you think we should revere the typist?

Give me a fucking break!

She was a product of her time and much is irrelevant now save for her insight into the power of the individual to change things and the responsibility to make own's life instead of bowing to the expectations of others and accept the consequences of those choices.

This lesson was taught to me and everyone I grew up with, in spades ... by our parents and our familes.

I think some of those quotes on her impact - even at the highest levels and the most mundane - housefrau to professor are very appropriate especially in light of the vibrancy of the 60s that blossomed in reaction to the conformity and the oppression of the 40s and 50s. If anything was a confirmation of her joy of the individual that burst of creativity across an entire generation was.

The rise of anti-conformity and anti-establishment in the 60's had nothing whatsoever to do with Miss Ayn Rand. I participated quite thoroughy in that movement West Coast to East and I never heard Rand's name mentioned once nor any reference made to anything she wrote. Not one peep. She was not on anybody's radar.

The things that drove the 60's were unique and had little by way of precedent save for some influence from the labor and civil rights movements. I could write a 3,000 page book on that time and I'd never mention Rand once, not even in passing. She and her ideas and philosophy had no play in that time, not even as precedent.

There were lots of writings that one could have drawn upon to gain the insights you claim to have gained from Miss Rand, and most of them, no ... all of them ... were far superior to the trashtalk and gibberish she cranked out. Not even in the same league.

You go on about sustained sales of Miss Rand's work and this has already been addressed as having nothing to do with the merits of her writing and everything to do with the publishers who own her copyrights making money. It has a name, it's called promotion, and you know damned well they'll ride a horse 'til it's dead.

And I fully expect that most who buy her screeds are very disappointed and chuck them out after the first 20 pages.

As well they should.

I'd say it was high time we gave Ayn Rand a good long rest, like for eternity, and never again darken our lives with her crazed shit.

[Zuul]

The Fountainhead should've ended up with a load of lobbying of the corrupt politicians to relax building codes, yadda yadda, an astroturf anti-big government "pro-freedom of choice" co-opt by one of the main parties, and then the monument being built. Then two weeks later it burns down and kills thousands of people because it didn't abide by electrical/fire safety law. Everyone then agrees that it was "worth it".

[MacDoc]

Not my problem you were out of touch.....

The initial press run by Random House of Atlas Shrugged was 100,000 copies. Three days after the publication date of October 10, 1957, the book appeared on the New York Times best-seller list at #6. It remained on the list for 21 weeks, peaking at #4 for a six-week period beginning December 8, 1957. Net sales of the book were nearly 70,000 copies in the first 12 months. Total sales of Random House editions reached 250,000 copies by the time Dutton, a division of Penguin Group (USA), became the publisher in 1992.

The initial press run for the first paperback edition by New American Library in 1959 was 150,000 copies. Again it had net sales of nearly 70,000 copies in the first 12 months.

Ayn Rand observed that most of her books showed a gradual increase in sales over time, and, stimulated by “word of mouth,” they were reaching “my kind of readers.” The novel appeared on the paperback best-seller list of the New York Times on at least a couple of occasions; #8 on January 15, 1961, and #9 on April 7, 1963.

By 2008 more than 6,500,000 copies of Atlas Shrugged had been sold by its U.S. publishers. A British edition was published by Penguin Modern Classics in 2007.

Most remarkable about a novel in print for 50 years is the increasingly strong trend in sales over recent years. Paperback sales by New American Library to the book trade averaged 77,600 copies a year in the 1980s, 95,200 copies a year in the 1990s, and in the current decade have averaged 139,200 a year. After 50 years, annual sales are reaching all-time highs. Penguin Group (USA) currently publishes four editions: hardcover, two trade paperback editions, and one mass-market edition.

Since the "establishment" generally hated her.....and opening reviews confirmed that.....the Times assigned a communist to review AS - yet the book stayed way high the best seller list.

Seems to me from your bits and pieces of your revealed bio YOU were the establishment.....again I find it amusing the visceral reaction to an atheist who hated religion and any oppressive conformity group.
She still needles you eh....

Do you have the same vitriol for Heinlein???

[Julia D.]

I haven't been talking about philosophy so far, only writing ability. But I do find your attitude here rather atypical, considering your positions on other subjects.

Me too.

I do puzzle over it, MacDoc.

[MacDoc]

Which is why you don't understand Rand.

SGalt does.

What kind of libertarian was Ghandi?

What did he do to stop the British Empire in it's tracks.....?

where do you think I sit in this
http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Despite my science background I have a degree in modern literature and a second in philosophy and I'm responsible independent capitalist as are many of my creative clients including the likes of Naomi Klein.
Make of it what you will.

I did.

[Julia D.]

But everything about Rand screams "extremist" to me and I thought you a proponent of balance. Just because you like her idea of the heroic, non-conforming individual (who doesn't as long as their heroics are for the greater good?) doesn't mean that the rest of her philosophy wasn't wrongheaded and that she, herself, wasn't a very troubled person whose philosophy was extreme because she was reacting to the extreme circumstances of her youth.

I admit I have only read one of her books (Anthem) when I was 15 or so but I do remember the impression I had of the book after I'd finished it: melodramatic and simplistic.

I have not read her other works. I have read a number of reviews and articles about her cult following. Nothing I've read about her makes me want to read anything she wrote.

[Fact-Man]

The Fountainhead should've ended up with a load of lobbying of the corrupt politicians to relax building codes, yadda yadda, an astroturf anti-big government "pro-freedom of choice" co-opt by one of the main parties, and then the monument being built. Then two weeks later it burns down and kills thousands of people because it didn't abide by electrical/fire safety law. Everyone then agrees that it was "worth it".

Funny, creative, witty, brilliant ...

One couldn't ask for more!

Thank you, Zuui, you made my day.

[Fact-Man]

Which is why you don't understand Rand.

SGalt does.

What kind of libertarian was Ghandi?

What did he do to stop the British Empire in it's tracks.....?

where do you think I sit in this
http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Despite my science background I have a degree in modern literature and a second in philosophy and I'm responsible independent capitalist as are many of my creative clients including the likes of Naomi Klein.
Make of it what you will.

I did.

And now you're name dropping, for shame!

Look, there's nothing wrong with getting inspiration to become an independent persona not determined by convention or mainstream thinking, we all got that inspiration from one source or in one way another. What is questionable is to tout one's source of said inspration and to assume it should inspire all in the same way, especially given the baggage that attends this particular source.

Me, I think "responsible independent capitalist" is an oxymoron, not to mention an obsolete concept.

So there ya go, competition everywhere. And I'd stand in any hall in the nation and debate the question with you, except I don't think you'd show up and would probably suggest I read "AS" instead.

What's a guy to do?

[Sheridan]

What’s a guy to do Fact-Man?

Rand’s fame or infamy largely rests on two novels.

So, why don't we objectively discuss notions expressed, putting aside Ayn’s personal history and our own biased ideologies?

In a forum devoted to critical thinking, that is ....

[Fact-Man]

What’s a guy to do Fact-Man?

Rand’s fame or infamy largely rests on two novels.

So, why don't we objectively discuss notions expressed, putting aside Ayn’s personal history and our own biased ideologies?

In a forum devoted to critical thinking, that is ....

Well, that's fine for those who have the interest.

I've done the homework and see no productive end to such discussions.

Thank you.

[Sheridan]

My remark was mostly meant for all posters, Fact-Man.

http://www.quebecoislibre.org/younkins17.htm

Ayn Rand's Philosophy of Objectivism.

By Dr. Edward Younkins.
Professor of Accountancy and Business Administration at Wheeling Jesuit University in West Virginia.

The Essence of Objectivism

Hierarchically, philosophy, including its metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical dimensions, precedes and determines politics which, in turn, precedes and determines economics. Rand bases her metaphysics on the idea that reality is objective and absolute. Epistemologically, the Randian view is that man's mind is competent to achieve objectively valid knowledge of that which exists. Rand's moral theory of self-interest is derived from man' s nature as a rational being and end in himself, recognizes man's right to think and act according to his freely-chosen principles, and reflects a man's potential to be the best person he can be in the context of his existing circumstances. This leads to the notion of the complete separation of political power and economic power – that proper government should have no economic favours to convey. The role of the government is, thus, to protect man's natural rights through the use of force, but only in retaliation and only against those who initiate the use of force.

Capitalism, the resulting economic system, is based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

For Rand, capitalism, the system of laissez-faire, is the only moral system.


Values and Virtues

Rand explains that to live, men must hold three ruling values – reason, purpose, and self-esteem. These values imply all of the virtues required by a man's life. Rationality, the primary virtue, is the recognition of objective reality, commitment to its perception, and the acceptance of reason as a man's only judge of values and guide to knowledge and action. Independence, the acceptance of one's intellectual responsibility for one's own existence, requires that a man form his own judgments and that he support himself by the work of his own mind. Honesty, the selfish refusal to seek values by faking reality, recognizes that the unreal can have no value. Integrity, the refusal to permit a breach between thought and action, acknowledges the fact that man is an indivisible, integrated entity of mind and body. Justice, a form of faithfulness to reality, is the virtue of granting to each man that which he objectively deserves. Justice is the expression of man's rationality in his dealings with other men and involves seeking and granting the earned.

A trader, a man of justice, earns what he receives and neither gives nor takes the undeserved. Just as he does not work except in exchange for something of economic value, he also does not give his love, friendship, or esteem except in trade for the pleasure he receives from the virtues of individuals he respects. Love, friendship, and esteem, as moral tributes, are caused and must be earned. Productiveness, the virtue of creating material values, is the art of translating one's thoughts and goals into reality. Pride, the total of the preceding virtues, can be thought of as moral ambitiousness.

Capitalism and Individual Rights

Rand's justification of capitalism is that it is a system based on tile logically derived code of morality outlined above – a code of morality that recognizes man's metaphysical nature and the supremacy of reason, rationality, and individualism. The ruling principle of capitalism is justice. The overall social effect – the fact that individuals and groups who live under capitalism prosper – is simply a byproduct or secondary consequence. Political and economic systems and institutions which encourage and protect individual rights, freedom, and happiness are proper systems.

A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context. According to Rand, rights are innate and can be logically derived from man's nature and needs. The state is not involved in the creation of rights and simply exists to protect an individual's natural rights. There are no group rights – only individual rights. Group rights are arbitrary and imply special interests.

Humans are material beings who require material goods to sustain their existence. If one's life is the standard, man has the right to live and pursue values as his survival requires. He has the right to work for and keep the fruits of his labour – the right of property. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. A man who has no right to the product of his efforts is not free to pursue his happiness and has no means to sustain his life.

A violation of a man's property rights is an expression of force against the man himself. The purpose of government is to protect man's rights (including property rights) and enforce contractual agreements – a breach of contract is an indirect use of force. The state's function is thus restricted to the retaliatory use of force.

Under Randian capitalism, which historically has never existed, there is a complete separation of state and economics. Men deal with each other voluntarily by individual choice and free trade to their mutual benefit. The profit motive is just and moral. Profit is made through moral virtue and measures the creation of wealth by the profit-earner. The market price is objectively determined in the free market and represents the lowest price a buyer can find and the highest price a seller can obtain. Freedom guarantees that both parties will benefit – no one is willing to enter into a one-sided bargain to his detriment.

A person's wealth under capitalism depends on his productive achievements and the choice of others to recognize them. Rewards are tied to production, ability and merit. A producer can do with his wealth what he chooses. Charity is rational, objective, and genuine when, rather than being offered indiscriminately, it is offered only to those who deserve it. Generosity toward those who are innocent victims of injustice or who are fighting against adversity is proper. It is wrong to help persons with no virtue. By giving unconditionally you deceive the recipient into thinking that wealth and happiness are free. Charity must be voluntary. Forced redistribution will result in the curtailment of effort of the productive and a decrease in the amount of real wealth (i.e., real virtue) within society.

1. Randian Scholarship: Problems and Controversies

As to be expected, Rand's original system of thought has not gone without criticism. A few of the most common criticisms are discussed below.

Rand claims that all of a man's knowledge of reality comes through the senses. She also takes for granted the validity and objectivity of the senses. Nowhere does she disprove that knowledge can be gained through and/or enhanced by other sources such as revelation by God, existential encounters, mystical experiences, and the human emotions. Knowledge that comes through a man's senses varies with respect to its accuracy. Concepts are abstractions and are not equal to their referents. Not only are man's senses and brain fallible, he is also limited by his own subjectivity and perspective – alone he may be able to perceive some aspect of reality, but very seldom can he see the whole picture. In those cases in which he does perceive reality accurately, he cannot totally prove it since if, as Rand maintains, the senses and the brain are the only means by which we know reality, there is no way to compare reality with perceptions created by the brain.

Rand contends there are no reasons to believe in God. For her, the idea of God is offensive and humiliating to man since it would mean that man is not the highest being in the world. Her position is that without God it is up to man alone to pursue his own happiness and create his own values. Freedom for Rand means the non-existence of a Creator. Nowhere, however, does she attempt to refute arguments for the existence of God such as Aristotle's unmoved mover, Aquinas' five proofs, Anselm's ontological argument, and James' argument from mystical experience.

Rand's repudiation of altruism seems to be due to the unusual way that she defines the term. Her idea of altruism is that man must selflessly place the welfare of others above his own. A more common idea, however, is that altruism is a man's concern for or dedication to others' interests in addition to his own. Charity, compassion, and the desire to give pleasure to others can have their place in human relationships as long as they do not playa principal, determining role, or are accomplished through the involuntary redistribution of individuals' wealth.

According to Rand, it is wrong to help a person with no virtues. To the Christian, however, life's right action involves consideration for the welfare of all others – every person is an end in himself and is potentially redeemable. Perhaps Rand should have simply stated that charity must be freely given and left it at that.