Who, pray tell, is supposed to be convinced by a word of this?

(I've just given as much support for my statement as you did for yours.)

AG

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rand was not only a novelist, she was a playwright, screenwriter and philosopher. A list of some of her non-fiction works:

Rand, Ayn.Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. New American Library, 1967.
A collection of twenty of Rand’s essays on politics, history, and economics. Also includes two essays by psychologist Nathaniel Branden, three by economist Alan Greenspan, and one by historian Robert Hessen.
Rand, Ayn. Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. New American Library, 1979.
Rand’s theory of concept-formation. Also includes an essay by philosopher Leonard Peikoff on the analytic/synthetic distinction.
Rand, Ayn. Philosophy: Who Needs It. Bobbs-Merrill, 1982.
A collection of Rand’s essays on the nature and significance of philosophy.
Rand, Ayn.The Romantic Manifesto. World Publishing, 1969. Paperback edition: New American Library, 1971.
A collection of Rand’s essays on philosophy of art and aesthetics.
Rand, Ayn. The Virtue of Selfishness. New American Library, 1964.
A collection of fourteen of Rand’s essays on ethics. Also includes five essays by psychologist Nathaniel Branden.

Rand's creation is Objectivism. The philosophy of rational self-interest. It's popular among conservatives seeking rationalization for deregulation, laissez faire capitalism, small government, selfishness and dogfighting. Although Objectivism has taken some knocks over the years, her work in the science continues to inspire. Pia Varma, Penn Gillette, Alan Greenspan, even the creator of Spiderman draw inspiration from Rand's philosophy.
Conservative politicians love cherry-picking Rand almost as much as they love cherry-picking the bible, having precious little actual knowledge of the contents of either. (Strange bedfellows, really, considering Rand rejected religion as "mysticism".) Rather like Greer cherry-picked his own limited knowledge on Rand to produce this grossly inaccurate piece of crap.

If Greer and AlterNet want to play nasty names, they should stick to baiting FOX News. Or at least spend five minutes "googling" the topic they pursue in order to, at least, try to bolster the impression of something less than gross ignorance and functional illiteracy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Economic lunacy is believing that only the wealthy are somehow "special" and create all jobs... because they have money... not because there is demand (which brings them money) which requires the expansion of their businesses and the addition of jobs.

Also... every sign I see protesters hold up STILL says WHO is John Galt.. not WHERE is John Galt, which would be accurate to the novel. Why? Because they themselves don't actually know who John Galt is because they have never waded through Ayn Rand's ubermensch rants.

Much like Wealth of Nations, most of the people talking about how it should influence our economic system have never actually read all of it. If they did read wealth of nations, we wouldn't be where we are today because they would have known long ago that an economy based on making money by shifting other money around without any goods or services to show for it is going to fail very quickly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Do people read a book and then adopt their beliefs and follow a pattern by choice? Or do they choose to be a certain way and then discover that someone great once believed the same things, and wrote a book? There are just so many variatons on any theme. We can all find like-minded thinkers. I like Willam James (The Pragmatist) and I see myself in many things that he said, but I didn't read the book first. Actually I admire many people, but I don't model my beliefs based on what anyone else does. It's purely coincidental. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"...Two new biographies of Rand and maybe even a new film...."

FWIW, two films are available now from Netflix: Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life, a 1998 documentary by Michael Paxton, and The Passion of Ayn Rand, a 1999 drama about Rand's personal life starring Helen Mirren as Rand, Eric Stolz as Nathaniel Brandon, and Peter Fonda as Rand's husband Frank O'Connor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mr. Greer wrote that the admirers of Ayn Rand are part of a cult, and that Greenspan is a "follower" of hers. He also wrote that the heroes in her novels "made big profits in unfavorable economic times", and "it's all story telling, with no basis in documented experience". Further, he wrote that she had "nothing new to show business". Amazingly, he continued with "there is no real economics in Rand, and certainly no moral logic."

Having studied several philosophers over the last 30 years, the only thing I learned from Mr. Greer's article was that he must be dishonest, since none of his accusations are true, and he provided no evidence that they are.

Objectivism is not a cult; it is a philosophy taught in dozens of colleges around the US. Greenspan did admire Rand a few decades ago, but later signed on to controlling and regulating the economy with fiat currency, something that no Objectivist would advocate.

While some of the heroes in Miss Rand's novels were financially successful, Kira Argounova of _We The Living_ didn't earn even small profits, and, for the most part, Howard Roark of _The Fountainhead_ didn't either. Dagny Taggart of _Atlas Shrugged_ ran a railroad, but that business struggled on the brink of bankruptcy throughout the entire story. John Galt, also of _Atlas Shrugged_, spent the entire story refusing to develop and market the motor he invented.

Miss Rand, however, did become wealthy by living her philosophy: rational self-interest. She was honest, hard-working, diligent, and focused, and she started with next to nothing, emigrating with no assets from Communist USSR.

Also, Miss Rand gave businessmen something no one had ever given them: moral sanction to own and operate their businesses, according to their judgment, not that of bureaucrats. She advocated a different morality, one of rational self-interest, the opposite of altruism. While one may disagree with that morality, preferring to cling emotionally to biblical stories passed on through generations, it is hard to believe anyone could claim she offered nothing new.

As far as the assertion that Miss Rand offered no economics and no moral logic, is Mr. Greer unaware of her non-fiction, which includes _Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal", and _The Virtue of Selfishness_, each of which offer detailed descriptions of both?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rand considered herself a member of the class of people ("the men of the mind") whose absence would cause an economic collapse and a Malthsian die off.

She took her mind permanently off the market when she died in 1982. Has her absence made any practical difference to the world?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Do right-wing blogs have as many trolls as one finds on AlterNet? Certain topics just bring the trolls out of the woodwork, which seems to show that neo-cons must monitor certain subjects on liberal blogs. Seriously, does this happen on right-wing blogs, like it does on AlterNet?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can anyone give a historical example of a Liberal Democracy that has existed without Capitalism?

No.

But Capitalism has existed without Liberal Democracy.

Without Capitalism there can be no Liberal Democracy.

Socialism is government control of the poor, facism is governemnt control of business.

Rand spoke of trade; effort given in EXCHANGE for something of value. Not handouts or use of force to obtain property.

She also spoke of the value of money, that it cannot be printed out of thin air, the means of exchange between honest men, look around today and know that the value of money printed and handed out, merely borrowed against the efforts of our children will be determined by those who give it value, the producers. Not those who take by tears of the use of force.

If you've ever read Shrugged, you'll know companies like the 20th Century Motor Co., albeit fiction, are remarkably similar to GM and other bailouts....fiction yes, but we're living in reality now. You judge for yourself the value of the story she told.

Also, watch the dollar. A countrys currency shows its value by the promise of future production.....what exactly do we produce?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rand's popularity continues in part because she gave us permission to embrace a politically incorrect feeling most of us have but don't want to acknowledge: We derive "spiritual" fuel from experiencing competent, successful, happy, thriving or just merely physically attractive people, even if we can't live up to their level ourselves. (I don't mean "spiritual" in some kind of mystical or religious sense. Bear with me here.)

Conversely, we experience spiritual depletion by having to witness or deal with stupid, incompetent, improvident, chronically helpless or even violent people. (Life's losers who form the natural constituency of both Christianity and the left, in other words.)

Dealing with the former kinds of people make me, at least, feel good about human existence -- they provide me with spiritual fuel, in other words -- because they show what higher possibilities exist. Dealing with the latter kinds of people, even among my own relatives, spiritually depletes me by making me feel bad about human existence. (We can't all have a father, grandfather or uncle like Warren Buffett, in other words. BTW, Buffett's value as a relative one can seek advice from derives from the fact that he can tell you how to make your own money, not from the possibility that he could give you some of his money.)

Rand came along and said that this feeling signals what we naturally strive for, contrasted with the natural repugnance we feel towards the Christian/left constituency; so we should legitimize and sharpen this emotional response as the basis of our lives.

Conservatives understand this on some level, hence their gravitation towards the kinds of people Rand says we want to meet or become any way. Their media celebrate successful athletes, entrepreneurs, CEO's, etc. They don't have anything on their shows comparable to Congressman Bernie Sanders's weekly guest appearance on Thom Hartmann's show to talk about all the failed athletes or business people who need handouts from the government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Though it's true that the right loves to quote Ayn Rand in defense of whatever their topic of the day is, it's also pretty clear that they have read the books about as closely as they have read the bible. In much the same way that they take selective quotes from the bible to support their views, ignoring context, passages and sometimes entire books, the right takes a few quotes from Atlas Shrugged, often out of context, and certainly without appreciation for any nuance.

Unfortunately Colin Greer has taken about as much time with the books as the right wing, and does Ayn Rand a great disservice by accepting without question the right's use of her words.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...in one of these guy's brains as he reads Rand.

We already know how their brains work. Anything supportive to their base assumptions is amplified, and anything that would detract from the validity of those assumptions is tossed out and ignored. This is how people with "deep convictions" -- and no preference for logic -- work.

As a matter of fact, they read so little in general, that I have to wonder how many have actually read the volumes they laud (or even know what the word "laud" means). Most are likely on the boat because they've heard that Rand explains and predicts all of the "ills" of Progressivism. Reading is second to making a point in a "crisis," after all.

Realistically, these folks get all of their "news" from biased sources, and I suspect this is another expression of that tendency.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dear LightningJoe and others,

For what it's worth, I am a supporter of Ayn Rand's philosophy who came to it believing the opposite of her on most issues. I first read her in college, having already read most of the Western tradition of Great Books and quite a few serious books of thought from outside of it. It took several years of serious thought and comparison with other writers' arguments to become convinced.

That is to say that if you disagree then state your reasons. Do not try to dismiss the argument by blindly dismissing your opponents as unthinking.

I have become convinced that there are real ills and injustices of the statist politics shared by both Democrats and Republicans. I am convinced they are leading America slowly but surely to a state of impoverished dictatorship. I have come to this conclusion based on a logical analysis of history, considering many different interpretations of the facts.

It is your choice whether you choose to read and think about Rand, but consider whether she might actually have a worthwhile argument. If you have not done so, I suggest reading her non-fiction.

Regards,
Randal

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That Ayn Rand, beyond her cartoonish simplicity, was a ham handed literary hack better suited to a career as a stenographer than philosopher to robber barons and trust fund dilettantes

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...the fact that his entire article amounts to nothing more than smear? Is this really the best you have to offer the world? You have every right to your beleifs, however, to write in this manner of a philosophy you do not accept is the equivalent of 'lying for Jeasus'. The only other possibility I see is that you simply have not done your homework. Feel free to correct me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rand isn't just an isolated pie-in-the-sky positivist about the individual and what can be achieved.

See this Russel Cromwell tract for stuff that would have found much approval from Rand:
http://pinkmonkey.com/dl/library1/digi096.pdf

Consider the entire thrust of Benjamin Franklin's life one that would flow on the same great river of thought that carried to Rand.

Who was it that wanted us to win friends and influence people? Him too. This is just the beginning.

The Calvinists, for altogether different justifications would have commended the direction and actions of Rand's heros.

All of this individual achievement stuff is really very very USA and I worry that if we lose this we lose the essential equality amongst us citizens.

In order to be survivors, we have to continue to approve of those who actually get the stuff done and we need to continue to struggle for equal opportunity to compete -- but not struggle for redistribution of wealth at every step and turn.

For crying out loud, we are the most communist of the largest (area and pop) countries! That should give you a big hint right there that the old lefty arguments are rotten.

If you want us to cheer for the underdog, we'll do that, but only to give the underdog a chance at the game -- not for some special treatment or unneccessary unearned goods.

Instead of casting angry assertions at a blameless dead champion (Rand), how about focusing in on the areas of practical positive steps to adjust for unequal opportunity in this Great Recession? Putting CRA back in or going back to Pre-Clinton Welfare is not going to solve anything and won't capture the public imagination.

Read a little more Rand and you might find your muse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Colin,

Yes, her novels are fiction, yet you are attempting to take them literally. Whose fault is that?

They are of the Romantic school, not Naturalism like most contemporary novels. Spiderman walked on the sides of buildings, are you going to attempt that? Do you think all Objectivists want to blow up buildings because that's what Roark did in The Fountainhead? Do you dismiss Greek epics because they contain factual discrepancies? Should we tear down the Sistine Chapel ceiling because people don't really look like Michelangelo painted them? Your premise that art must be judged literally is hereby rejected.

Rand spent the last part of her career writing exclusively non-fiction. Are you against people doing more than one thing in life? Is it wrong that people change careers, have hobbies, remarry, or eat different foods? How boring.

Your post is simply ad hominem rather than rational arguments; you've presented nothing of substance. In the future, try understanding the ideas and criticizing them, rather than simply repeating others' misconceptions.

Jeff Montgomery
http://funwithgravity.blogspot.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Much of it, but not every word. Example:

The difference between political power and any other kind of social “power,” between a government and any private organization, is the fact that a government holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force. This distinction is so important and so seldom recognized today that I must urge you to keep it in mind. Let me repeat it: a government holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force.

No individual or private group or private organization has the legal power to initiate the use of physical force against other individuals or groups and to compel them to act against their own voluntary choice. Only a government holds that power. The nature of governmental action is: *coercive *action. The nature of political power is: the power to force obedience under threat of physical injury—the threat of property expropriation, imprisonment, or death.

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal “America’s Persecuted Minority: Big Business,”
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 46.

That's right, Rand was pro-gun control, and anti-militia. She was very wrong on many economic issues, but on this one, she was right - and in direct opposition to many Republicans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Atlas Shrugged made a lot of sense to me. I might argue some with the idea that all capitalists are as brilliant as portrayed in the book, but I'd have to say that we have seen, and are seeing, some of the things she describes in her story happening in our lifetimes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All I really know of her is what I have learned from those who adulate her. I have yet to meet an admirer of Ayn Rand who was anything other than a delusional, narcisstic asshole. Perhaps I've simply been unlucky in that regard.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

From the Soviet Union who lived in California? Reminds me of another Soviet immigrant who lives in California - Queen of the birthers Orly Taitz.

Strange that the right wing nutjobs need to look to Soviet immigrants for inspiration?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No individual or private group or private organization has the legal power to initiate the use of physical force against other individuals or groups and to compel them to act against their own voluntary choice. Only a government holds that power. The nature of governmental action is: *coercive *action. The nature of political power is: the power to force obedience under threat of physical injury—the threat of property expropriation, imprisonment, or death.Tiffany Jewellery | Tiffany Jewelry

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In this region, the story persists that Taylor Caldwell wrote the books under the Rand pseudonym after her agent shafted her, and that the public Rand was the actress-sister of Mayer screenwriter and occultist author Phoebe McDonald.

Conservative members of the Rosenberg family created the bio as a PR ploy to disavow the Rosenbergs who were convicted of treason.

Caldwells and McDonalds are prevalent here, and my McDonald relatives swear to the authenticity of this yarn.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let us remember Ms. Rand emigrated from the Soviet Union that coincided with the rise of the proletarian dictatorship of Joseph Stalin.

What better way to destroy capitalism than by founding a "philosophy" of hyper-individualism in which laissez-faire capitalism is the only moral social system; the only proper function of government are police, the courts and the military; capitalism is a moral system which promotes rationality and productivity.

This isn't to say Randism doesn't have its good points, it is anti-racist, anti-religious and anti-censorship.

However most Rand-cultists have focused solely on the economic side of objectivism and have used its flawed logic to justify their looting of pension funds and the federal Treasury.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As a professor of political philosophy I would give an undergraduate student a "D" for this unsupported, unsupportable and ad hominem "critique" of Ayn Rand. I say this not as a fan of Rand, but as a progressive who considers this kind of trash piece to be an embarrassment to the cause of enlightened politics. When the intellectual quality of Alternet's arguments descends to the level of Rush Limbaugh, I feel increasingly inclined to unsubscribe (after many years as a subscriber).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ayn Rand's books are worth reading in that they describe the workings of a state of consciousness and the great myths of an age now passing.

The Tree of Life from the Kaballah describes 10 different states of consciousness and their relationships that make up man.

The lowest is physical, the next up emotional. Above is the level of mind which is split by the objective mind on the right and subjective on the left. Centered between and next above is the center of the heart, or Christ consciousness. Christ consciousness is the first of what is considered the spiritual states of consciousness.

The person who is immersed in objectivism sees not which is above but only through the lens of the materialist. Its polar opposite (which is on the same level of development), subjective or inward knowing, is vilified because it can prove nothing by pointing to it 'out there'. The tarot card that describes the relationship between objective and subjective consciousness is the tower, or the objective manifestation being destroyed by lightning. The most normal path of development of consciousness is first objective, then subjective, and the destruction of the outward walls symbolized by the tower card describes the process. As a norm, republicans tend to come from the objective state and democrats from the subjective. Hence republicans' love of Ayn Rand.

The tarot card that describes the relationship between the objective center and the Christ center is the devil card (to subjectivists, the tarot card is death). Objectivists often portray people coming from the heart center as the anti-christ which describes their particular distaste for altruism - a concept completely foreign to objectivity.

The age of Pisces, which is now receding in potency as the energies of Aquarius builds, stimulated and was about individualization. The Marlboro man. The rugged individualist who makes it on his own as Ayn Rand perfectly describes. Yet that state, being a lower state of consciousness, is disconnected from a higher reality which operates as one. The age of Aquarius is an age of group work and synthesis. It is of sustainable development which is nothing more than taking actions with the knowingness of the law of cause and effect. The age of Aquarius is the time of the birth of Christ consciousness within humanity and its outward expression to be demonstrated to humanity by by Those who have achieved that.

The fascination with Ayn Rand is by those who wish to cling to a level of consciousness that needed to be learned but now must be transcended. Their struggles will be mighty, but the time of dominance of their state of consciousness is past. Compassion and detachment are of use.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The delightfully incorrigible novelist, Tom Robbins, wrote: Communism inevitably erodes into totalitarianism and Capitalism into chaos.

Ayn Rand's philosophy in Atlas Shrugged, and it can rightly be called a philosophy, describes that chaos romantically and naively. In Rand's world, greed and self-interest are moral (see Berkowitz article on The Family today on Alternet).

Moreover, if Rand's vision were fully adopted, it would be an unapologetic world of capitalism where everything is for sale, everything is owned - rivers, rain, streets, parks, Yellowstone Co. etc. - there is no common good, and all sales are final. The only protection for the consumer is buyer beware.

Also, Jesus got it wrong, and we shouldn't let religious morality poison the well of profit.

Hummm, economically speaking, sounds like the last 30 years in america.

peace

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

only thing that keeps me coming back to these articles posted in alternet (besides the great writers -- chomsky, taibbi, erhenreich, etc.) is the "comments" section where the real story often emerges. Thanks to everyone who bothers to present a "real" argument.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I read much of Rand's work in younger days, including her Objectivist Philosophical tracts like "The Virtue of Selfishness" among others. If Rand's Objectivism is the philosophical core of the Republican Party as many Republicans claim, then why does the Republican Party and the Conservative movement resemble a Grand Alliance of the two groups she railed against most loudly?

Look at today's Republican Party and the modern conservative movement. You have two distinct subgroups.

1. The Social Conservatives AKA the Religious Right that Rand characterized as "The Mystics of Faith".

2. The Neoconservative Movement who believe that Might makes Right. These people Rand characterized as "The Mystics of Muscle."

What these two groups share in common is a disdain for science and objective truth, that is, the products of the Rational, Liberal mind. The Religious Right, as Mystics of Muscle, want you to believe them because God said so. The Neocons, as the Mystics of Muscle, want you to believe as they do or they'll beat,torture or kill you.

Never mind that Rand used her Objectivist philosophy as a smoke-screen to engage in a little dirty leg with Nathaniel Branden. Consider how that philosophy, based on Logic, Rationalism and the acceptance of Reality, as it IS, informs the conservative belief system. Both of the aforementioned groups seek to deny objective reality to suit their own goals. The Mystics of Faith deny reality by pointing to a mystical Creator who's existence is not self-evident. The Mystics of Muscle deny objective reality with the canard that they CREATE their own reality in opposition to the Objective Reality Rand professed belief in.

Now, after 30 years of so-called Republican Objectivism run amok, what are the results?

1. The US was transformed from the World's largest Creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation.

2. The US was transformed from the greatest producer of value-added products to a place where nothing is made anymore except the implements of war, death and destruction.

3. The US was transformed from the place with the greatest public education system in the world to a land of ignorance and stupidity.

So to my conservative countrymen, I say this:

If you think you still stand for Objectivism, Check your Premises. After all, A still equals A.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ayn Rand's writings and philosophy are supposedly based in economics, at least to some extent, and her acolytes include such people as Alan Greenspan -- who has now admitted that his faith in Objectivism was a mistake. Talk about understatement. The problem is, as Greenspan can attest to, is that she knew next to nothing about economics.

This is a true story (i.e., it is not fiction, unlike Ayn Rand's nonsense):

In 1973, I had the (mis)fortune of hearing her speak to small group (about a dozen); a Q&A session followed.

My question to her was about those who suffer from events beyond their control, or what are known to economists as "exogenous events", and about how events have effects beyond their immediate situation, or what is known to economists as "externalities".

Not only was she unable to provide a coherent answer (eventually providing just more nonsense about "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps"), but she also was completely flummoxed by my terminology. Before she could provide her non-answer, I had to define those two terms to her.

Now, while they may be unknown or obscure to the general public, these terms are very familiar to anyone with any educational background in economic study at all; one would have learned those terms in Economics 101. It would be roughly equivalent to a so-called expert on baseball not knowing what a double play or sacrifice bunt was.

Yes, it is fiction. And, unforunately given the effect she has had on people like Greenspan, it is based on the writings of an extremely ignorant person.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Anyone can go straight from school and open a profitable Wheezes shop, although people may look down on you because you could have gotten a nice job wizarding at a bank or for the government or teaching. To do this you need proper training from an accredited school of magic, but you also need to be enterprising at a tender young age.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A good recent criticism of Ayn Rand, and of the "Atlas Shrugged" utopia was done in the form of the computer game "BioShock". The game is set in a Rand-inspired utopia turned distopia.

A review of the game that looks at this can be found at the Boston.com review:

BioShock lets users take on fanaticism through fantasy

Also, the wikipedia entry on BioShock discusses this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

- a recent book takes the opposite position to Rand - Rand posits generous, hard-working capitalists being used and abused by lazy greedy socialists, a view that modern neocon supporters et al seem to have embraced whole-heartedly, although the leaps of blindness in the face of what is currently underway in America to maintain such views are stunning - but in Green Island, we see a modern society which has displaced the capitalists, and we peasants do quite well altogether without the capitalists stealing everything we produce. The capitalists, of course, are not too happy about this example of how life really could be for 'we the people', so try one of their little regime change operations - but on Green Island, they get thier little asses booted, somewhat to their chagrin. Much else - Green Island http://www.rudemacedon.ca/greenisland.html .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As far as her writing abilities went, but her descriptions of the heros in her books were inspired by the evils of Lenin, and his grotesque version of communism. She also failed to take human nature into consideration, much as Lenin did.
True communism exists among Pacific islanders, where everyone is part of an extended family, and private property has much less meaning or is non-existent.
There is NO concept of the "other" there, no unwanted children, or abandoned old people.
It was my joy and privilige to be accepted as a family member on a couple of those islands.
Many would say it couldn't possibly work here, but how well has our heartless and predatory form of capitalism worked for most of US?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the Ayn Rands of the world will continue to win. Get to work and let's crack open the progressive ideology box before it's too late !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Right wingers and conservatives are always speaking about the rights of the individual when they have been responsible for destroying the freedom of millions of Americans. The police state filled with laws against drug use, pornography, and gay marriage has been sponsored by those that scream the loudest for individual rights. They are also responsible for killing a hundred million civilians in foreign lands. Using Ayn Rand novels as the foundation of a right wing philosophy is a sham. She would quickly disown them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Doesn't her obsession with sexual conquest also have evoke similar behaviors by Congressmembers?

"The subject of sex is complex and belongs largely to the science of psychology. I asked Ayn Rand once what philosophy specifically has to say on the subject. She answered: "It says that sex is good."

Was Ayn Rand also an intellectual prostitute?

"The success of her novels and its themes attracted readers who saw a flavorful emergent weltanschauung. Two of the most prominent were psychotherapist Nathaniel Branden and economist Alan Greenspan. Rand's association with these and other brilliant thinkers convinced her to write in the informative essay genre."

This is what you call a PR plot - in the 1960s, there was a need to sell the accumulation of gross wealth by a few people as something acceptable within a democratic system - a notion that FDR, traitor to his class, had ended up vehemently opposing.

Enter the Rockefellers, who founded the Chicago School of Economics and also played a major role in the creation of the Nobel Prize in Economics (which actually dishonors Alfred Nobel's memory) - all part of a major PR effort that continues to this day, aimed at repainting aristocratic control of wealth as the "natural state of affairs".

That's why Ayn Rand's drivel is so widely promoted - it's been paid for, and like Goebbels said, the key to successful propaganda is to take an idea, simplify it to the point where a small child could understand it, and then repeat, repeat, repeat:

"I'm rich and wealthy because I earned it, not because I inherited that wealth as an accident of birth, and certainly not because I used fraud and violence to obtain that wealth."

Repeat, repeat, repeat... "I am not a psychopath who doesn't give a damn about my fellow human beings."

It's quite similar to the quasi-scientific eugenic theories of the late 19th and early 20th century, which were aimed at portraying the victims of Western colonialism as "natural genetic inferiors who deserved what they got." That theme was picked up by the Nazis, and everyone knows the results (except the Iranian prez, apparently).

Pure fucking bull, in other words, paid for by billionaires who obsess over social control strategoies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's in the dictionary, I promise.

Go and expand your vocabulary!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...to please give some thought as to how this article was written, as I think this person made remarks (e.g.: "she wrote fiction!") which, IMO, did not contribute positively to the article, and in fact, I believe, to a certain extent, gave some ammunition to people who want to dismiss Alternet as being frivolous in its approach.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

their other favorite book, the Bible, is also a work of fiction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stupidity once again reigns supreme on Alternet.

Rand was indeed a novelist. She used her works to bring her philosophy to life. Her philosophy, to her and many others, is not fiction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

To Kill a Mockingbird was FICTION. The Oxbow Incident was FICTION. Gentleman's Agreement was FICTION. Les Miserables was FICTION. Each of these (and many, many others) has something profound to say about life and/or human nature. And so do Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, We the Living, and Anthem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Question: What is the difference between Ayn Rand's books and the Ring Trilogy?









Answer: One is about imaginary beings with superhuman powers and the other is about fairies, elves, dwarves and similar beings.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Atlas Shrugged is a great read even though it is full of fantasy - BUT - Ms Rand did get it right when she said - "It's philosophy that's gotten us into this mess and it is only philosophy that will get us out of it."
As usual - the problem is to find the right philosophy and that's something neither Capitalism or Socialism have ever been able to define.
The Ten Commandments are probably as close to any workable philosophy that ought to apply to a Society - irrespective of religion or culture - but who in the hell takes any notice of that in this day and age?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ayn did say that she wrote only for herself. Because she wanted to understand more about herself and the world around her.

If these right-winged citizens are using her as an example against Obama administration, I find that hilarious. She stressed that The Fountainhead wasn't about architects, or that Atlas Shrugged wasn't about Trains and Business. It was always about her fictional worlds, her philosophy of Objectivism, and how she made sense of the real world.

Anyone who really read her novels front to back would know that. She says so in the forward.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thanks for all the comments.

To the question, have I read Ayn Rand:

Not enough, given what thoughtful people seem to value in her work.

To the question of art and its immunity from moral discourse:

I am dubious about such immunity. Has it not long been legitimate to query whether Shakespeare was anti-Semitic in creating Shylock, or whether Heidegger's thought is contaminated by his Nazi affiliation. These are complex and unresolvable questions but not to be discarded with a refusal to ask them.

About the American tradition of self-reliance, going back to Benjamin Franklin:

We only have to see the current public bailout of private finance to know that self-reliance rests on a foundation of collective strength. And certainly the independent strand in American life is not alone in creating the until recently growing middle class. Collective action and public policy were at least as responsible as the free market for that. Incidentally, racism has as long a history as self-reliance in America so duration is perhaps not the best argument for legitimacy.

Rand's ideals,'rational self-interest' and 'individual rights,' are not embodied in the free market any more than social purpose and collective action are intrinsic to mixed economies. However, the free market is not independent of consciousness and so is an idea that much like the idea of 'the American people,' popular with politicians nowadays, deductively reaches for reality to meet the ideal it represents, and inductively reaches from our feelings of longing for belonging and security.

The super-hero, Spiderman, swinging from up high to save citizens unable to help themselves is a good comic adventure, but in Alan Greenspan's lionization of tycoon treasure hunting, it has not been helpful.

If I have missed in any of Ann Rand's writings--plays, novels, screen plays, non-fiction books, her newsletter--a commitment and imperative to adjust a democratic and humane society, please send me references. I'd be grateful for page references or excerpts. If it's there, I'd like to know. Perhaps my own perspective has clouded my reading.

Nevertheless, her fame and continuing popularity do not seem to be a force for those values in our society. Surely the impulse to philosophy has melted into a secular theology when concepts serve as reality versus serving to investigate the reality which, without ideas, evades consciousness. To use ideas in this latter way was, I believe, Rand's ideal, and it is quite antithetical to reified concepts like self-reliance and the free market. The warnings of John Maynard Keynes that we face "irreducible uncertainty" and of Karl Popper's law of "unintended consequences" are worth remembering to set against the stranglehold of rigid concepts on our public policy and social thought.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article is monumentally flawed and worthy of redress. Take a look at this article. It does a better job explaining the Rand resurgence than anything else.

It's been asserted time and again that Ms. Rand is some sort of right-wing saint. Far from it, as the above cited article will demonstrate and a quick look at Wikipedia will reveal, the Grand Old Man of the American conservative movement, William F. Buckley, called her philosophy "stillborn."

Also of double standard note is the pillory of Ms. Rand's behaviors, certainly nobody died in "re-education" camps or gulags as a result of her crotch or psyche. Marx, on closer inspection, was no real friend of the diffently colored oppressed people he and his "cult" claimed to "liberate."

Had the author bothered to read "Atlas Shrugged" the work cited as a keyword, one would find out that Dagny Taggart inherited Taggart Transcontinental, and that the Rearden family history had as much to do with Hank's success as anything else.

Objectivism is neither conservative or liberal, I claim no real expertise in the matter, however it's primary tenet is a=a, truths are discovered rather than created.

All this reactionary mewling over her is eerily reminiscent of the points she makes in the book, and the perpetual caterwauling of butt-hurt intellectuals who can't admit they've been bested by, of all people, a woman who refuses to abide by what the committee says.

Capitalism, as explained to me by an econ major, is nothing more than a means to get goods and services from point a to point b. Communism follows suit. Human nature and intrusive government, led by political dogma, fouls the mechanisms, calumny results.

Rand's belief in it is as a means to an end, the end being individual liberty guided by moral precepts. Morality is a key issue in Rand's work and it's not as simple-minded as one would presume.

In Rand's world, that less than 1% of the population can control upwards of 20% of the wealth aided and abetted by both right and left wings gives justification and rise for the criminal actions of John Galt.

From the great film Network "What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state? Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions and compute the price-cost probabilites of their transactions and investments - just like we do."

Capitalism isn't the problem. Vilification of Rand isn't the solution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is a repost from a comment to Colin's post, as I think this might be of more general interest.

Dear Colin,

Thank you for taking the conversation seriously.

My guess from your comment here is that more reading will leave you in respectful disagreement. Respectful because it's hard (though people accomplish it) to read Rand's non-fiction without seeing the huge mental effort and seriousness at work. Disagreement because she does not start with "a commitment and imperative to adjust a democratic and humane society."

This last comment suggests that your primary goal in politics is some kind of handout or at least a safety net. I am working on a few words, so it's possible that I'm misinterpreting, but that is what most people mean when they say democratic or humane. Rand's aim in politics (which is a relatively minor part of her philosophy) is the protection of freedom and one's individual rights to make his own choices in how he lives his life and survives. There are no handouts, except for those that people voluntarily choose to give.

Now, discussion around politics has been very clouded, and it's possible that your aim is more general than this. If what you want is the well-being of people in America or whatever your home country might be, then you do need to seriously look at Rand's non-fiction. Rand looked at history and at the destruction of her home country of Russia and saw the direct role of socialism in destroying wealth and impoverishing a nation.

What I love about America is that there is still a chance for people to live happy lives here. What I am concerned about is a future in which everyone is enslaved and impoverished. I want a chance for myself, my friends, my children, and anyone who cares about their lives.

If that is your true concern, then I'd suggest starting with "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal." Many will suggest starting with Atlas Shrugged, but in my experience, someone who disagrees with her will view the book as a manufactured straw man. If you are interested in the philosophy as a whole, then I'd recommend starting with "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand."

Randal

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

and once they poop out all they have consumed, leaving putrefying, hollowed-out husks of former life and habitat behind, what then?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

First, let me say that I am an Ayn Rand fan. Not because of her philosophy, but because of the characters she created to illustrate it. They are a bit overdone, but quite impressive. Only someone with the experience and intellectual objectivism of Rand can appreciate their power. On the other hand, they are surreal. I am probably the closest thing to John Galt that I have known, and I understand the self-indulgence of being smart. I also, however, understand the humbling power of nature, which Rand never brings up. Her characters don't get flooded out by any disasters that aren't man-made. To her, Man is the top of the food chain, as most people believe that are educated in the modern world.
Nature doesn't see it that way. Nature's food chain is upside down from ours: in nature, everything is dependent upon the bottom of the food chain, not the imaginary power of the Mind. Rand's Mind is not much different than any believer's God: the source of all power to them comes from "on high".
Rand had a fetish for being overpowered and sexed by strong men. She lets it show in her writing. It's actually an evolutionary trait, and not necessarily a good one; however useful it was in primitive lives.
Anyway, the two logical things missing are these: Net Usefulness and Diversity.
A species evolves in the shape of a bell curve in order to be ready to change by dieoff and rebirth. Those that adapt to a specific environment die off when that environment changes and the ones who are adaptable to new environments (fringe) are the source of the next species. This means diversity is critical to any sustainable way of living.
Any species must 'put away' some extra usefulness over and above the resources it consumes in order to survive when things get tough. This is the source of social interaction and the 'efficiency' of civilization and stored food. It requires some type of cooperation, usually done with the help of administration and government of some kind or another in modern human terms. In Nature, it means that insects produce millions of extra offspring and hookworms cooperate with their hosts by suppressing the immune reactions to cholera.
Rand's people are all of one selfish, independent, romantic type, living in a niche. They'd be extinct after the first tornado.
(Well, notwithstanding the magic of "energy extracted from the air").

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No moral logic? It is obvious Colin Greer did not read the 30 pages of Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged. If only those thirty pages out of all of her work survives, she will have saved mankind the struggle to find a rational base for morality. Morality elsewhere is based on faith in the supernatural, which allows it to be bent to the control of a manipulator. Her moral logic is the greatest individual liberator mankind will ever know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's not gloss over the fact that, like everything else that may seem to suit their misguided purposes, the far right is appropriating Ayn Rand's name with more or less a misunderstanding of all of her thinking. Rand was disgusted as much by conservatives as she was of today's liberals. Both cultures are rife with irrational thinking without the best interests of the individual in mind. Both argue for the "good of the many" while Rand argued that "the many" is an abstraction and absolutely nothing without the good of the individuals who comprise it. Ironically, it is "the good of the one" that gets the desired effect most are looking for in their adherence to "the good of the many". The individual is a concrete, "the many" an abstraction. Protect the integrity of each and every individual and the "good of the many" is achieved. Protect the elusive "many" and individuals everywhere suffer. Living, breathing human beings ought not be diminished in value with regard to the non-existent "many". Yes, Rand was a tireless advocate of capitalism, but most gloss over the fact that the economic system we have in the United States isn't capitalism and most of those claiming to be capitalists are not. Rand argued for respectful dealings among human beings with free and unhindered exchange of value for value. She spoke tirelessly against looting and mooching which is the common argument among today's conservatives and liberals against capitalism when these are not the values of that philosophy. In a political and economic environment characteristic of good capitalism, human beings do not expect the undeserved and voluntarily acquire what they need or desire by the fair exchange of what the seller wants or desires without physical force or coercion. Anytime one sees behavior designed to gain that which has not been earned, if not a respectful request for voluntary charity, is something other than capitalism. Rand's favorite words for those people was "looters" and "moochers" - i.e., the expectation through force or coercion that value can be obtained without a fair exchange of value in return. Today's "right" and "left" are far closer to these labels than they have ever been or ever will be to genuine "capitalists".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dear prac,
please give us an example in the world of a country where capitalism has existed without a LD?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

http://community.livejournal.com/liberal/3300255.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]