Summary: Ayn Rand has become a hot intellectual property, whose wisdom many conservatives recommend guide our actions. Here is the essence of her teaching.
.
Here are two columnists exchanging volleys about Rand.
- “Obama Needs AIG’s Liddy, Not Other Way Around“, Caroline Baum, op-ed at Bloomberg, 19 March 2009
- “Carol Baum: Welfare CEOs are Just Like John Galt“, Matthew Yglesias, ThinkProgress, 19 March 2009
I have not read any of her books. I gave up after trying to go through both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead (life is too short). But perhaps we can find all we need to know about Rand in the comments to Yglesias article. Here are a few of the best.
#13 Mnemosyne Says:
In defense of Ayn Rand (and that’s the last time you’ll see me say that), in her books the heroes were people who actually made and built things, like railroads and buildings. The financiers – the kind of guys who would sell and re-sell the same mortgage 20 times – were always the villains. They’re a bunch of James Taggarts trying to convince everyone they’re John Galt.
#15 burritoboy Says:
.
Beyond Rand’s other numerous stupidities, she had no idea what modern corporations actually do, or even the bare basics of how they operate. The great corporate innovators of her era like Gerard Swope, John J Raskob and Alfred P Sloan were precisely NOT the inventor / entrepreneur figures a la Galt. Indeed, Alfred Sloan forced out William Durant out of GM, a figure far more like Galt than Sloan was. By the time of the 1920s, the era of inventors / entrepreneurs (if there ever really was such an era) had already long departed.
#64 Dr Zen Says:
“Though there are two serious flaws in Rand’s novel”
This is true. She can’t write and her ideas are stupid. Her “philosophy” boils down to: “the rich are entitled to be greedy, erm, because, erm, because, hey want a blowjob?”
I’d say it’s a good rule of thumb in this life to consider everyone who thinks Rand is a philosopher and not a clown to be irredeemably stupid. I’ve never seen a counterexample.
#96 Kevin Says:
Going Galt after reading Atlas Shrugged is somehow akin to moving to the Shire after reading Lord of the Rings. This meme has now had it’s fifteen minutes.
#99 Jon Says:
I can’t remember if my passing desire to be John Galt came before or after my passing desire to become the Kwisatz Haderach.
#112 Trollhattan Says:
I suspect John Galt was actually a pseudonym for Tom Swift, so Rand didn’t have to pay royalties. Working title for Atlas Shrugged: “Tom Swift and His Atomic Razor.” Isn’t “going Galt” just code for stiffing your Applebee’s waitress?
For more information
See Wikipedia on Ayn Rand and Objectivism.
Posts about Libertarianism:
- All you need to know about Ayn Rand, savior of modern conservatism, 22 March 2009
- A modern conservative dresses up Mr. Potter to suit our libertarian fashions, 17 November 2011
- Ron Paul’s exotic past tells us much about him, the GOP, libertarians – and about us, 27 December 2011
- Choose your team: our election is a conflict between long-dead philosophers, 12 September 2012
- The difference between Christianity & Libertarianism marks a line between America & the New America, 11 February 2013
.
.
Here’s a question. If Ms. Rand’s novels are simply too long or slow moving, etc. to delve into for effective—and credible—support of content and meaning analysis, why not look into some of her shorter, non-fiction works, perhaps in support of a later thread?
I refer you to The Virtue of Selfishness, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Philosophy – Who Needs It?,and the essays in Capitalism – The Unknown Ideal, and The New Left – The Anti-Industrial Revolution.
Could be lively.
No discussion of Ayn Rand and Objectivism would be complete without “Bob the Angry Flower’s Classic Literature Sequels: Atlas Shrugged 2 – One Hour Later”.
FM: “Please give an example from 100 years ago of “Throw money at the problem” in anything remotely like a Keynesian sense”
Well, Knight and Viner both advocated deficit spending to combat recessions: “Taking the name of lord keynes in vain“, Mario J. Rizzo, The American, 20 Feburary 2009.
But the Chicago school is dated from 1920 (source), so that’s not quite the full 100 years that Sean is commenting about.
I was going to suggest the creation of the Fed in 1913 and fiat currency as a response to 1907 but you beat me to the punch with your latest post.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: This is classic sophistry. I ask for an example of “throwing money at the problem” and you give me theory. With sufficient work probably you can find some relevant reference in Sun Tzu or the Torah, or a cave drawing from 10000 BC. Few ideas are original, and none are of virgin birth. Let’s try for some real world event, the usual meaning of “example.”
I doubt the actions of the Fed are a relevant example, at least until late Hoover or the New Deal.
Ayn Rand: porn for greedy people.
re: comment #16
senacal, if you are really interested in learning more, the ever-observant & ever-hilarious Roy Edroso is on this like white on rice, like black on crude, like [pick your own metaphor].
I cencede the mnemosyne thing, though I followed the link to digby and did a ctrl+f for mnemosyne, which gave nothing. Thus my jumping to conclusion that MAF was brought in to comment by an aquaintence.
With regard to LaVey satanism, they are atheist as well. Satan is not something to be worshipped, but purely a symbol to oppose feeble christian morality as they would put it. LaVey has even cited Rand as influence. It is indeed objectivism taken to it’s logical extreme.
Re #43
J.P. Morgan threw money in the Panic of 1907 as the banker of last resort. At least, paraphrasing Reagan, he was throwing his own money. Is this Keynesian? Of course not.
But I don’t think Sean’s reference is literal anyway, it’s reductio ad absurdum — “We’ve all *been* Keynesians for a 100 years” struck me as a complaint about the gradual acceptance of massive deficit spending through fiat currency. Freedom under this kind of government-Fed power-grab is as much a joke as it is under any plutocracy.
Now I can expect a blast that Sean or I or the guy who comes in on Thursdays has misused the name and theories of Keynes (such as here), and we’re not fit to tie his shoes, and we’re morally bankrupt (which I suppose is worse than being financially bankrupt but lately doesn’t feel that way!) I’ll just save you the trouble and type it for you.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: You may applaud to your hearts content the liquidationish theories used so well by Hoover (until his last year or so in office). No doubt that was not real capitalism, just as the Soviet Union was not real communism. In both cases nobody will repeat the experiment for several generations, until the memories fade.
Also, substantial deficit spending was unknown in America except during wars until the Great Depression. 77 years is not 100 years, at least as most of us count. Whatever Sean was attempting to say ignored that basic fact of history.
i like comments 23 and 44.
Anyhow I did read the fountainhead all the way thru in college, not that long ago, mainly because a girl I liked read it too. Nice story, don’t really see a philosophy in that particular story, as compared to say, Rawls’ A Theory of Justice on liberalism or Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia which were the only 2 modern books on this stuff I got to read before I gave up on non-science stuff).
Rand’s values stuck me as a mixture of romantic hero-ism and libertarianism. She didn’t give me a satisfying answer for what mechanism in society sorts out the “good” capitalists from the “bad” ones, which is my main problem with libertarians in general (though despite that I think they have many many valuable insights).
FM: “I too like Heinlein’s novels, but as political theory they are inferior to Spiderman or Batman comics (which is say, zero and near-zero). IMO that’s true of Rand’s novels as well. Fun, provocative material.”
How can you develop an opinion about a novel that you’ve never read? Yes I read your response to a similar question earlier. Aren’t you really criticising the interpretation of a philosophy if you haven’t read it’s source? If you criticize Islam without having read the Koran aren’t you criticizing prominent interpretations (i.e. overt action; OBL or governance; Taliban) of Islam? If you criticize Marx without having read Marx aren’t you criticizing Lenin or Stalin or the historical fallout that came about from the interpretation of Marx?
Given that Rand’s philosophy has no real world institution to which you can point a finger, aren’t you relying purely on other people’s criticism for your own?
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: You must have very little to say if you only comment after reading primary sources. Esp you cannot comment much about absurd things. Have you read the justifications of the Spanish Inquisition, Satanism, racism, or Hitler? Better not criticise until you do!
As I said, I worked through parts of both of Rand’s books and gave up each time. Perhaps her brilliance was overlooked in my skimming, but I doubt it.
David remarked “[Rand] didn’t give me a satisfying answer for what mechanism in society sorts out the “good” capitalists from the “bad” ones…”
Dynamite in The Fountainhead, genocide in Atlas Shrugged.
“Fabius Maximus: People frequently feel ownership rights to other people’s stuff”
Stories make a lot more sense in context, which electrophoresis either intentionally left out out or maybe he didn’t bother to read the book he dislikes enough to smear strangers who disagree with him.
In the Fountainhead climax, Roark blew up the (uninhabited) building he had designed because he had been intentionally cheated out of any payment for his work by those who had contracted him – the sole payment being that the building would be built as designed. As he had been defrauded, Roark blew up the building rather than let those who had ruined his vision and cheated him profit from his work, which tied the ending trial to the theme of aesthetic integrity as well as contractual property rights.
An end that stretches credulity for the sake of dramatics and politics? Sure. Hardly any more so than the leftwing agitprop Hollywood cranks out on a regular basis.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: Books advocating settling civil disputes with dynamite should be filed in the “terrorism” section of the bookstore. And how does Roark “know” the complex is empty? No night watchmen? No kids playing in the dark? No doubt his letter of apology would be elegant for any resulting deaths. No, I do not find the context adds anything to this strory.
“Books advocating settling civil disputes with dynamite should be filed in the “terrorism” section of the bookstore.”
By that logic, Les Miserables should be stocked under “True Crime”.
I’m not bothered by anyone not caring for Rand’s writing or philosophy. There’s ample room for criticism there but most of what was offered in this thread have been of the straw man variety. As you have not read the book, you are relying on the judgment of others who have ideological axes to grind and – from my observation – may not have read it themselves either and know little or nothing about the basics of Rand’s ideas.
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: I don’t understand the analogy. Rand’s novels are explicitly didactic, hence my conclusion (books advocating…should be) seems reasonable. Hugo’s Les Miserables is neither didactic nor does it pretend to be true; on what basis should it be “stocked under ‘True Crimes.'”
This critique of Rand’s work is, well, ridiculous. Clearly those seeking bailouts for their own bad behavior at the expense of others would be villains in any Rand novel (Looters). Rand would not identify the heads of our failed financial institutions as Galt-like characters, regardless as to whether or not they believe themselves to be Galt-like.
As to Roark, I would be hopelessly lost in the FM library. So, I would find The Fountainhead under Terrorism, and by your link and definition, I would also find there Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath? Or maybe that is under Murder? And from this thread, I would apparently find Spiderman and the Watchman under Philosophy or Political Science? I am afraid to ask where I might find The Bible or the Koran?
If Rand’s work has inspired any entrepreneur to create wealth for themselves, I applaud her (although, from my experience, Rand has not inspired as much as she has validated what many of us know intuitively). Fortunately for all of us here, Capitalism’s death is greatly exaggerated. Long live Free Markets!
I can’t resist, FM, sorry: Who is John Galt?
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: This makes no sense to me. Most of it reflects nothing on this thread (e.g, I see nothing about the “death of capitalism”).
The 2nd paragraph is a mystery. Perhaps Iannarino has spend too much time in the children’s section of the library. Most books more complex than “Tom Swift and his Jetmarine” can be read on multiple levels. Both the Watchman and Spiderman certainly discuss philosophy and polticial science. Time permitting, I would like to write a series of posts about those aspects of the Spiderman and Batman legends.
IMO the defense of Rand’s work on this thread has been pitifully weak. Most of the specific references to her works have come from the critics; the defense mostly whining “if you read it more carefully you’d see its truth.”
Fab: I did spent quite a bit of time as a child in the children’s section of the library. More recently, the children’s section of the bookstore and the comic book store. Why have children if not to get a second run at some of these things? And why have a son if not to get back to the comic book store?
Enjoyed the debate and the blog. With what will you next provoke us?
Also: Wikipedia entry about “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal: “One of Ayn Rand’s non-fiction works, a collection of essays regarding the moral nature of laissez-faire capitalism and private property. The essay has a very specific definition of capitalism, a system it regards as broader than simply property rights or free enterprise.”
FM note: I recommend reading this comment!
This points up a devastating criticism of Rand’s novels which to my knowledge no one else has made: to wit, Ayn Rand’s novels prove that she herself does not actually believe in market capitalism.
In Rand’s novels, market capitalism fails when Roark and Galt get cheated out of their just rewards for their labor and creativity. As a result, Rand’s solution is to make her protagonists jump outside the capitalist system, solving their problems with violence (in Roark’s case) or by retreating from the world to a hermit community of like-minded inventors (Galt’s case). In both cases, Rand’s proposed solution is to abandon the capitalist market system.
The Fountainhead is loosely based on Frank Lloyd Wright’s career, and it’s instructive to see how Wright’s real career contradicts Rand’s fantasy version. In the real world, Frank Lloyd Wright met with early success and then his architecture grew unpopular — but did Wright run around blowing stuff up with dynamite? No, in the real world market capitalism actually worked!
What happened in the real-world version of Roark’s story is that Wright became an author and his book on architecture went on to sell many thousands of copies and go through multiple editions, making him influential and admired. Wright then opened an architecture school, which paid off for him very well financially, but, even more importantly, his students spread the word about Wright’s genius, and this started to land Wright a whole new set of clients. Soon, Wright had more architectural work than he could handle, and he rose right back to the top of the architectural world with masterpieces like Fallingwater and MOMA.
Notice, however, that none of this required violence. In the real world, market capitalism worked. Wright made money from his work, acquired students, started a school of architecture, became influential, and eventually enjoyed a resurgence of popularity.
In the infantile Ayn Rand version, market capitalism doesn’t work. In her novel the market failed to value Roark’s work properly. So Rand’s novels actually show that she had no faith in capitalism and she didn’t really believe in markets. The irony of course is that the real world teaches us the opposite lesson — the real-world Roark, Frank Lloyd Wright, was properly valued by the markets, and in reality, capitalism worked as it was supposed to for the real-world Roark (Wright) and his architecture.
If Ayn Rand is indeed a didactic novelist who espouses free market capitalism, her novels teach us a most curious lesson: namely, not to believe in capitalism and to distrust markets.
FM note: From the Wikipedia entry about The Fountainhead — architectural themes:
I thought it interesting that Rand was a friend of Greenspan… birds of a fetter. I read somewhere that she and Greenspan were part of an elite group who met every week to discuss the poor and intellectually deprived of the world. Is he an atheist also? I’m afraid her ego (or maybe hot flashes) got the best of her in Atlas. Galt’s speech was 3 hours long–good grief!
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: Few people in history have done so much as Greenspan to discredit the free maket aspects of capitalism. He, perhaps more than any other individual, put some of Rand’s ideas to work on a national scale. We will pay for the results of this test for many generations.
From the New York Times:
From Wikipedia:
The ultimate Ayn Rand analysis: