How Ayn Rand became the new right's version of Marx

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Apr 25, 2002
15,044
157
0
#1
Her psychopathic ideas made billionaires feel like victims and turned millions of followers into their doormats


It has a fair claim to be the ugliest philosophy the postwar world has produced. Selfishness, it contends, is good, altruism evil, empathy and compassion are irrational and destructive. The poor deserve to die; the rich deserve unmediated power. It has already been tested, and has failed spectacularly and catastrophically. Yet the belief system constructed by Ayn Rand, who died 30 years ago today, has never been more popular or influential.

Rand was a Russian from a prosperous family who emigrated to the United States. Through her novels (such as Atlas Shrugged) and her nonfiction (such as The Virtue of Selfishness) she explained a philosophy she called Objectivism. This holds that the only moral course is pure self-interest. We owe nothing, she insists, to anyone, even to members of our own families. She described the poor and weak as "refuse" and "parasites", and excoriated anyone seeking to assist them. Apart from the police, the courts and the armed forces, there should be no role for government: no social security, no public health or education, no public infrastructure or transport, no fire service, no regulations, no income tax.

Atlas Shrugged, published in 1957, depicts a United States crippled by government intervention in which heroic millionaires struggle against a nation of spongers. The millionaires, whom she portrays as Atlas holding the world aloft, withdraw their labour, with the result that the nation collapses. It is rescued, through unregulated greed and selfishness, by one of the heroic plutocrats, John Galt.

The poor die like flies as a result of government programmes and their own sloth and fecklessness. Those who try to help them are gassed. In a notorious passage, she argues that all the passengers in a train filled with poisoned fumes deserved their fate. One, for instance, was a teacher who taught children to be team players; one was a mother married to a civil servant, who cared for her children; one was a housewife "who believed that she had the right to elect politicians, of whom she knew nothing".

Rand's is the philosophy of the psychopath, a misanthropic fantasy of cruelty, revenge and greed. Yet, as Gary Weiss shows in his new book, Ayn Rand Nation, she has become to the new right what Karl Marx once was to the left: a demigod at the head of a chiliastic cult. Almost one third of Americans, according to a recent poll, have read Atlas Shrugged, and it now sells hundreds of thousands of copies every year.

Ignoring Rand's evangelical atheism, the Tea Party movement has taken her to its heart. No rally of theirs is complete without placards reading "Who is John Galt?" and "Rand was right". Rand, Weiss argues, provides the unifying ideology which has "distilled vague anger and unhappiness into a sense of purpose". She is energetically promoted by the broadcasters Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santelli. She is the guiding spirit of the Republicans in Congress.

Like all philosophies, Objectivism is absorbed, secondhand, by people who have never read it. I believe it is making itself felt on this side of the Atlantic: in the clamorous new demands to remove the 50p tax band for the very rich, for instance; or among the sneering, jeering bloggers who write for the Telegraph and the Spectator, mocking compassion and empathy, attacking efforts to make the word a kinder place.

It is not hard to see why Rand appeals to billionaires. She offers them something that is crucial to every successful political movement: a sense of victimhood. She tells them that they are parasitised by the ungrateful poor and oppressed by intrusive, controlling governments.

It is harder to see what it gives the ordinary teabaggers, who would suffer grievously from a withdrawal of government. But such is the degree of misinformation which saturates this movement and so prevalent in the US is Willy Loman syndrome (the gulf between reality and expectations) that millions blithely volunteer themselves as billionaires' doormats. I wonder how many would continue to worship at the shrine of Ayn Rand if they knew that towards the end of her life she signed on for both Medicare and social security. She had railed furiously against both programmes, as they represented everything she despised about the intrusive state. Her belief system was no match for the realities of age and ill health.

But they have a still more powerful reason to reject her philosophy: as Adam Curtis's BBC documentary showed last year, the most devoted member of her inner circle was Alan Greenspan, former head of the US Federal Reserve. Among the essays he wrote for Rand were those published in a book he co-edited with her called Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal. Here, starkly explained, you'll find the philosophy he brought into government. There is no need for the regulation of business – even builders or Big Pharma – he argued, as "the 'greed' of the businessman or, more appropriately, his profit-seeking … is the unexcelled protector of the consumer". As for bankers, their need to win the trust of their clients guarantees that they will act with honour and integrity. Unregulated capitalism, he maintains, is a "superlatively moral system".

Once in government, Greenspan applied his guru's philosophy to the letter, cutting taxes for the rich, repealing the laws constraining banks, refusing to regulate the predatory lending and the derivatives trading which eventually brought the system down. Much of this is already documented, but Weiss shows that in the US, Greenspan has successfully airbrushed history.

Despite the many years he spent at her side, despite his previous admission that it was Rand who persuaded him that "capitalism is not only efficient and practical but also moral", he mentioned her in his memoirs only to suggest that it was a youthful indiscretion – and this, it seems, is now the official version. Weiss presents powerful evidence that even today Greenspan remains her loyal disciple, having renounced his partial admission of failure to Congress.

Saturated in her philosophy, the new right on both sides of the Atlantic continues to demand the rollback of the state, even as the wreckage of that policy lies all around. The poor go down, the ultra-rich survive and prosper. Ayn Rand would have approved.

Twitter: S @slotherini monbiot

A fully referenced version of this article can be found at www.monbiot.com



http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/05/new-right-ayn-rand-marx
 
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#3
The poor deserve to die; the rich deserve unmediated power. It has already been tested, and has failed spectacularly and catastrophically.
Making things up isn't a strong way to support a position.


But they have a still more powerful reason to reject her philosophy: as Adam Curtis's BBC documentary showed last year, the most devoted member of her inner circle was Alan Greenspan, former head of the US Federal Reserve. Among the essays he wrote for Rand were those published in a book he co-edited with her called Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal. Here, starkly explained, you'll find the philosophy he brought into government. There is no need for the regulation of business – even builders or Big Pharma – he argued, as "the 'greed' of the businessman or, more appropriately, his profit-seeking … is the unexcelled protector of the consumer". As for bankers, their need to win the trust of their clients guarantees that they will act with honour and integrity. Unregulated capitalism, he maintains, is a "superlatively moral system".

Once in government, Greenspan applied his guru's philosophy to the letter, cutting taxes for the rich, repealing the laws constraining banks, refusing to regulate the predatory lending and the derivatives trading which eventually brought the system down. Much of this is already documented, but Weiss shows that in the US, Greenspan has successfully airbrushed history.
It's ironic that this author rallies against the notion of reducing the scope of government influence, then goes on to point out it was that very same government that is largely to blame for financial climate we are in today and also what came to the aid of these failed corporations.

So I guess government is both the cause of, and solution to, the same problems... [/headspinning]
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#4
Heads are spinning only if one is putting things in the cartoonishly oversimplified frame of "government good/bad vs no-government bad/good".

Government is very much needed to keep individuals's innate instincts to screw the other guy whenever they can in check, to regulate the commons, and mandate policies that are in the long-term interest of society as a whole but would never be pursued due to most agents in a society thinking on a short-term scale.

But if government is little more than a tool in the hands of individuals whose goal is to screw everyone else to advance their own selfish interest, then government is bad.

We want the former and not the latter. There is no contradiction.

And this is yet another reason why Ayn Rand, Ron Paul and the likes get it so horribly wrong - the argument that no regulation is the right way to go is absolutely flawed on its own, but there is also the other crucial fact that in such a system what invariably happens is that the economically powerful few end up setting up the rules, in their favor and to the detriment of everyone else. Which is what we have right now, and it will only become much more extreme if they have their way... Give this trend enough time to develop and you end up with feudal system or a fascist dictatorship.

There is a reason why Ayn Rand is considered an intellectual midget by anyone who is not one himself - it takes a complete disregard for most of human history and for everything we know about human behavior and biology to propose such a philosophy...
 
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#6
But if government is little more than a tool in the hands of individuals whose goal is to screw everyone else to advance their own selfish interest, then government is bad.
But since that is exactly what the government currently is, how does making it any larger in it's current form do anything other than exacerbate existing problems?

We want the former and not the latter. There is no contradiction.
When has the former ever existed?

Give this trend enough time to develop and you end up with feudal system or a fascist dictatorship.
And yet you have argued the need of something along the lines of a dictatorship on here in the past to save our species from our demise...

There is a reason why Ayn Rand is considered an intellectual midget by anyone who is not one himself - it takes a complete disregard for most of human history and for everything we know about human behavior and biology to propose such a philosophy...
Such philosophy recognizes the human species for what it really is, rather than trying to make it something it is not.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#7
But since that is exactly what the government currently is, how does making it any larger in it's current form do anything other than exacerbate existing problems?
I am not talking about making it larger in its current form.

When has the former ever existed?
It hasn't. But that's the problem and it doesn't change the argument at all,

And yet you have argued the need of something along the lines of a dictatorship on here in the past to save our species from our demise...
My precise words here were "fascist dictatorship"; when I say we need a dictatorship, I mean an enlightened one that, in the short term, can force people to do the right things that are in their best interest and they would never otherwise do because they are too stupid to understand the need for them, and that, in the longer term, will seriously tackle the problem of that sutpidity. After which, if successful, there will be no need for it anyway. I have also always clearly stated this is simply not happening, ever.

Such philosophy recognizes the human species for what it really is, rather than trying to make it something it is not.
No, it doesn't - it completely glosses over the consequences and the fact left on its own, such a system inevitably converges to a complete disaster for everyone.
 
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#9
I am not talking about making it larger in its current form.
Right, you are talking about making it larger in a form that has never existed.


It hasn't. But that's the problem and it doesn't change the argument at all
And the day such a thing does occur a woman will be the MVP of the NFL. Which does change the argument because you are waiting on something that is never going to occur. Your argument only exists in theory, mine exists in reality.


My precise words here were "fascist dictatorship"; when I say we need a dictatorship, I mean an enlightened one that, in the short term, can force people to do the right things that are in their best interest and they would never otherwise do because they are too stupid to understand the need for them, and that, in the longer term, will seriously tackle the problem of that sutpidity. After which, if successful, there will be no need for it anyway. I have also always clearly stated this is simply not happening, ever.
Agreed. Yet you continue to lobby for it....


No, it doesn't - it completely glosses over the consequences and the fact left on its own, such a system inevitably converges to a complete disaster for everyone.
We have lived through such a system for the overwhelming majority of our species history, and yet you and I are still here to argue its merits.

::

If Ayn Rand is such an mental midget, why doesn't one of her critics just write an equally compelling refutation of her ideas in the form of a novel that will ignite the masses and sell 10 million copies as she did?

You also realize how silly it is to assume that everyone who supports Ayn Rand must support all of her positions. I can't think of a person throughout all of our history with whom I agree on 100% of ideas. Maybe people just agree with Ayn Rand more than they agree will Nancy Pelosi.

I read the book myself and thought it entertaining but not overwhelmingly amazing. John Galt's monologues in particular were extremely redundant and lacked substance. The book could easily have been cut in half without missing any thing of importance.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#10
And the day such a thing does occur a woman will be the MVP of the NFL. Which does change the argument because you are waiting on something that is never going to occur. Your argument only exists in theory, mine exists in reality.
Just because I realize no meaningful change is going to happen, it does not follow that I should stop pointing out what is wrong with the way things are and in what direction they should change. I don't see the logic behind that assertion.

We have lived through such a system for the overwhelming majority of our species history, and yet you and I are still here to argue its merits.
Therefore nothing disastrous will ever happen... Nice logic.

If Ayn Rand is such an mental midget, why doesn't one of her critics just write an equally compelling refutation of her ideas in the form of a novel that will ignite the masses and sell 10 million copies as she did?
Seroiusly, you're in a very bad shape today. What sort of argument is that?

The best selling book of all time is the Bible.

The best selling book of the last decade was The Da Vinci Code.

Those are hardly examples of intellectually susbstantial works.

So why on earth do you bring the argument that because she sold a lot of books and influenced a lot of people, she is not the intellecual midget? The Left Behind books sold even more copies, are you going to defend those too?

You also realize how silly it is to assume that everyone who supports Ayn Rand must support all of her positions. I can't think of a person throughout all of our history with whom I agree on 100% of ideas. Maybe people just agree with Ayn Rand more than they agree will Nancy Pelosi.
Where did I say or imply that?
 
Nov 24, 2003
6,307
3,639
113
#11
Just because I realize no meaningful change is going to happen, it does not follow that I should stop pointing out what is wrong with the way things are and in what direction they should change. I don't see the logic behind that assertion.
No, it follows that if you recognize the given solution to a problem is impossible, you should come up with a different solution. Simple logic. I am surprised it has eluded you for so long. You don't continue performing experiments when you determine that the desired outcome is impossible do you?


Therefore nothing disastrous will ever happen... Nice logic.p
You miss the more obvious logic; "disaster" is all but inevitable. It is intrinsic to our species. No amount of government can prevent that, and in fact, governments as we apply them often accelerate the progression towards disaster.

Seroiusly, you're in a very bad shape today. What sort of argument is that?
hahaha Thanks G

The best selling book of all time is the Bible.

The best selling book of the last decade was The Da Vinci Code.

Those are hardly examples of intellectually susbstantial works.

So why on earth do you bring the argument that because she sold a lot of books and influenced a lot of people, she is not the intellecual midget? The Left Behind books sold even more copies, are you going to defend those too?
You miss the point. I am not arguing that is a correlation between the intellectually substantial caliber of a work and it's sales at all.

Agreed that the Da Vinci Code was far from such.

I am not even arguing that Ayn Rand was necessarily that smart, only that her critics aren't much her superior.

The argument is that if her critics are such her intellectual superiors they should be able to write silly works that appeal to the masses as well. I have no problem making my dog jump when I say jump because I am its intellectual superior and I understand how to motivate/manipulate. All these intellectual superiors should be to do the same with the mental midgets in our species, if they are truly intellectually superior. If they can't, then I don't believe them to be much superior.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#12
Well, I personally have very hard time writing even a page of text if I am not fully committed to what I am writing (part of the reason why almost every essay I had to write until I reached the stage I didn't have to write essays any more was an absolute torture).

You're suggesting that people should be able to write whole books of silly stuff just so that they can pander to the masses... You are seriously underestimating the amount of effort it takes to write a book - Atlas Shurgged is what, 1200 pages or something; sure, totally trivial to fabricate something like that.

And that's missing the point completely anyway - the goal should be to lift the masses from their current state of ignorance and semi-literacy to the state of enlightenment that currently few have achieved (even though a lot more claim they have).
 
Mar 8, 2006
474
13
0
44
www.thephylumonline.com
#13
And that's missing the point completely anyway - the goal should be to lift the masses from their current state of ignorance and semi-literacy to the state of enlightenment that currently few have achieved (even though a lot more claim they have).
No, the goal should be for YOU to lift YOURSELF out of YOUR current state of ignorance and semi-literacy to a state of enlightenment that makes YOU happy.

There's no such thing as salvation at gunpoint. Most people resent the implication, as I'm sure you resent others trying to enforce their particular brand of salvation on you.
 
Apr 4, 2006
1,719
333
83
43
www.myspace.com
#16
In what universe is individualism wrong???

Collectivism is slavery............

I don't need a group to tell me what to think or what I need to do...

Fuck that - I'm no sheep...

Ayn Rand was brilliant...

The thought of a collective society is scary... I don't want to live under a collectivist authoritarian regime..

Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot (among others) etc tried that collectivist nonsense....... It didn't work.

The funny thing is that libertarianism or individualism is the closest one could get to "anarchism" yet the anarchists align themselves with the radical authoritarian left......

Ayn Rands ideas define liberalism.. Modern "liberals" are anything but liberal.

Remember we're not the ones begging government to regulate us and depending on government to give us free money in exchange for a vote...

We're the true liberals - the rest are just sheep who just exist...