Whittaker Chambers on Ayn Rand

[Robert]

Some background may be in order on this: Some of you British or any of you younger guys may not know that Whittaker Chambers, an American citizen, was a central, pivotal, and very peculiar figure in U.S. history. At first a self-confessed communist, and then an ex-communist disillusioned by Stalin, he became famous for denouncing and testifying against one Alger Hiss, a State Department functionary, as a fellow communist and as a Soviet spy during the post WWII "McCarthy Era."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whittaker_Chambers

This allegation split the country, caused an uproar in the U.S. government, and led to two interesting trials. Really wild cloak and dagger stuff.

To this day I cannot get comfortable with the theory that Alger Hiss either was or was not a communist, never mind a spy. The evidence is clear but not especially abundant or convincing in my view. But it mattered a lot at the time because Hiss was an important figure in the State Department, a delegate to the Yalta Conference, and vehemently denied it. Whittaker's confession en passant that he himself had been a communist led some credence to the claim. What possible benefit could he get from the confession and admission that he and Hiss were both commies that was not outweighed by national censure and embarrassment, goes his defense. (I have a reasonable answer to that one.)

Anyway, Chambers was a gifted writer, working for both Time Magazine and National Review at different points, and I just discovered this beautifully written review of Atlas Shrugged that I find elegant and spot-on. Interesting to me that both communists and anti-communists like Chambers had such disgust for Ayn Rand's vision of the technocratic utopia (my term).

Anyway, I think everyone here except the Ayn Rand partisans (are there any on OI?) will enjoy this concise attack on Atlas Shrugged.

http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback200501050715.asp

[Plagueround]

As both a writer and someone with strong political ideals, one of the hardest things to do is to write characters that are not simply reflective soapboxes for your beliefs. It's easy to create a bunch of pseudo-versions of yourself and make them carry out your "path to utopia", it's much harder to make them vulnerable, diverse, and realistic characters who are not always right (or perhaps, to be more honest, do not hold the same viewpoint as you), do not always have the answers, and sometimes, do the wrong thing.
Rand, on the other hand, seems to revel in this. Damn good review, thanks for posting this.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The one thing I do not despise about Rand, actually, is her writing style. Sure, her characters are horrible cardboard caricatures, her plots are mind-numbingly boring, and her tone is exasperatingly preachy. But you know what? It masterfully serves its purpose. Her writings are among the most successful pieces of naked propaganda in the 20th century.

I wish we had a propagandist like Ayn Rand on our side.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I wish we had a propagandist like Ayn Rand on our side.

Ah, don't we all, don't we all? :lol:

[IcarusAngel]

If communism is Utopian I think Randianism would be dystopian. Rand openly admitted that there were be winners and losers in her game, and the winners are the intelligent and powerful capitalist class who, through one means or another, came to make large profits off of their assets. Furthermore, this capitalist class is to be "respected" and upheld, as sort of demigods of any country. If capitalists rape you, then they must have their reasons for it.

Her ideology is still prevalent among Libertarians like Neal Boortz who said that rich capitalists should be saved over the minorities in Katrina, as they are the "producers" and the poor workers are nothing more than leechers, and do not contribute anything to society.

Also, of course there are disagreements among the capitalist class. Some of the best criticism of Randianism comes from other capitalists or people who are I should say are indifferent. That is because when you criticize a lot of Randian beliefs, you do so philosophically, not necessarily from an economic viewpoint.

[Robert]

That is because when you criticize a lot of Randian beliefs, you do so philosophically, not necessarily from an economic viewpoint.

Well, that's probably right. But back to Atlas Shrugged, I suffered through about two thirds of it and then skipped to the atrociously windy ending, and just found the whole thing preachy, two-dimensional, as I think Plagueround elaborated above somewhere. Dogmatic. Inflexible. Intolerant. And ultimately boring, though intriguing at the beginning.

Reminds me of some adherents of another prominent ideology. Not all, of course. :)

[Jimmie Higgins]

The one thing I do not despise about Rand, actually, is her writing style. Sure, her characters are horrible cardboard caricatures, her plots are mind-numbingly boring, and her tone is exasperatingly preachy. But you know what? It masterfully serves its purpose. Her writings are among the most successful pieces of naked propaganda in the 20th century.

I wish we had a propagandist like Ayn Rand on our side.

Even though he was a liberal, John Steinbeck is the best political fiction writer from that era.

Upton Sinclair was basically the Ayn Rand of our side: the end of the Jungle is an extended Debs-like speech/pitch to become a socialist. I like him because of his total sincerity and a lovable hackishness, but yeah, he's still kind of a hack if judged on literary ability alone. It's ok, he could write 1000 pages a week and it would still be better than the 10 pages of fiction I could write in the same amount of time.

Steinbeck could write circles around Sinclair or Rand - beautiful plain and concrete language with images that stick with me for years after reading his stuff.

[Trystan]

Ayn Rand testified at these House of "un-American" things, didn't she? So much for the freedom of the individual. A conservative through and through - freedom, as I define it.

[IcarusAngel]

Ayn Rand was able to get many people into cult like thinking about her ideology. I wouldn't even want that for the left, but probably some kind of left-constructivism is closet to Ayn Rand (but at least they do their cultishness by challenging fundamental assumptions, I guess). However, she is so cultish even many Libertarians have disagreed with her, and even some Miseans, although they are also pretty cultish.

There are many ways to learn about metaphysics, rationalism, logic, perception, without ever reading Mises, Rand, etc.


Ayn Rand testified at these House of "un-American" things, didn't she? So much for the freedom of the individual. A conservative through and through - freedom, as I define it.

Yes, indeed she did.

They went after Dalton Trumbo who wrote "Johnny Got His Gun," also a more interesting novel than Rand's work.

[Conquer or Die]

The Whittaker Chamber's conservative anti Rand argument is what's presented in the video game dystopia of Bioshock, in case anybody is interested.

http://www.gamestop.com/Catalog/ProductDetails.aspx?product_id=61768

[Havet]

If communism is Utopian I think Randianism would be dystopian. Rand openly admitted that there were be winners and losers in her game, and the winners are the intelligent and powerful capitalist class who, through one means or another, came to make large profits off of their assets. Furthermore, this capitalist class is to be "respected" and upheld, as sort of demigods of any country. If capitalists rape you, then they must have their reasons for it.

Rand openly admitted that in "her" game there are winners and losers, but that losers always have a chance to become winners, if they work hard and use their mind rationally.

The capitalist class is to be respected, which means, is to be left alone from the TRUE leechers who are not workers, but the bureaucrats.


Her ideology is still prevalent among Libertarians like Neal Boortz who said that rich capitalists should be saved over the minorities in Katrina, as they are the "producers" and the poor workers are nothing more than leechers, and do not contribute anything to society.

Also, of course there are disagreements among the capitalist class. Some of the best criticism of Randianism comes from other capitalists or people who are I should say are indifferent. That is because when you criticize a lot of Randian beliefs, you do so philosophically, not necessarily from an economic viewpoint.[/QUOTE]

If that guy said that then he's an idiot. Besides, Rand never upheld that. Many of her characters came from working classes and got BIG FAT capitalists by working hard and using their minds rationally.

[Havet]

The Whittaker Chamber's conservative anti Rand argument is what's presented in the video game dystopia of Bioshock, in case anybody is interested.

http://www.gamestop.com/Catalog/ProductDetails.aspx?product_id=61768

I dont think Rands novel can be compared to the dissastrous ending of Bioshock. here's why (http://seasteading.org/stay-in-touch/blog/3/2008/05/21/nothing-against-bioshock):

"We can do the same sort of analysis for BioShock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BioShock). There, the city's owner/ruler demanded that the city maintain a closed economy; when supply and demand inevitably produced smuggling, he restricted trade, closed the transport links that allowed exit from the city, and nationalized his enemies' property. This, combined with a healthy dose of class resentment, pretty much doomed the whole endeavor in exactly the obvious way."

Rand's ideals were an OPEN ECONOMY and FREE EXIT, which is the complete opposite of what happened in Bioshock.

That aside, the game's actually pretty cool.:D

[Robert]

Libertarians who complain about parasites in society need of course to be damned sure they engage in no parasitic behavior themselves, which arguably includes symbiotic (is that a word?) cooperation with government (I'm thinking of contractors who supply and service government institutions like schools and prisons.)

That said, hopefully all of us of every stripe can endorse energetic community service by the citizenry. There is unfortunately much anecdotal evidence of New Orleanians leaving the city, finding subsidized housing in parts north, especially Baton Rouge, and showing no interest in returning home to accept paying jobs in the reconstruction of the city. Buses offering free rides back to the city ran half empty between BR and NO. Those stories no doubt reached Boortz's producer and served as grist for the mill.

I guess they had no obligation to go home to New Orleans until "the government" cleaned it up and repaired the levees, but can't something be said of the possibility that New Orleans could become an American Amsterdam, or even a Venice, and damn the water, with more effort and enthusiasm of its former citizens?

The government can't do it alone.

[Conquer or Die]

I dont think Rands novel can be compared to the dissastrous ending of Bioshock. here's why (http://seasteading.org/stay-in-touch/blog/3/2008/05/21/nothing-against-bioshock):

"We can do the same sort of analysis for BioShock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BioShock). There, the city's owner/ruler demanded that the city maintain a closed economy; when supply and demand inevitably produced smuggling, he restricted trade, closed the transport links that allowed exit from the city, and nationalized his enemies' property. This, combined with a healthy dose of class resentment, pretty much doomed the whole endeavor in exactly the obvious way."

Rand's ideals were an OPEN ECONOMY and FREE EXIT, which is the complete opposite of what happened in Bioshock.

That aside, the game's actually pretty cool.:D

1. The genetic engineering known as plasmids reduced many of the denizens to violent sub species acting against their will (well, to be honest, against their best interest, but probably within their perceived will). This is unregulated genetic salesmanship and a valid conservative counter argument to free market scientific experimentation and hard drugs. It's presented in an ironic tone because they themselves become parasites/slaves by participating in the free market.

2. Andrew Ryan openly protected free competition early on in the city (specifically mentioned in a tape recorded diary in the tree level) but as he saw the potential threat of other emerging business outclassing himself (the man who built Rapture) he viewed this as a possibility for corruption of what his world was.

Also, a thing you perhaps missed but perhaps the deepest indictment of Ayn Rand's utopic vision of the world is the fact that this second point was the clearest irony presented in the game. Andrew Ryan built a functioning, amazing city with a sincere set of beliefs behind it that resulted totally in him being outclassed by a smarter entrepreneur who was, in the free market sense, better than he was. When he saw his vision, his world being removed from him (accelerated by the amazing genetic engineering of plasmids) he saw his control of his world still in the same exact belief system as before. It was his world and he was able to decide what he wanted to do in his own self interest. His philosophy of competition and free market was challenged by multiple sources and he saw his world and property through his own lens of ownership. It was HIS after all, and damn those who challenge him.

The argument in Bioshock is not that Ayn Rand's philosophy is wrong. The argument in Bioshock is that power corrupts. Forget markets, ideologies, governments, any form of power or control over another will lead to an abuse of this power. That's the argument behind Bioshock.

[Havet]

1. The genetic engineering known as plasmids reduced many of the denizens to violent sub species acting against their will (well, to be honest, against their best interest, but probably within their perceived will). This is unregulated genetic salesmanship and a valid conservative counter argument to free market scientific experimentation and hard drugs. It's presented in an ironic tone because they themselves become parasites/slaves by participating in the free market.

2. Andrew Ryan openly protected free competition early on in the city (specifically mentioned in a tape recorded diary in the tree level) but as he saw the potential threat of other emerging business outclassing himself (the man who built Rapture) he viewed this as a possibility for corruption of what his world was.

Also, a thing you perhaps missed but perhaps the deepest indictment of Ayn Rand's utopic vision of the world is the fact that this second point was the clearest irony presented in the game. Andrew Ryan built a functioning, amazing city with a sincere set of beliefs behind it that resulted totally in him being outclassed by a smarter entrepreneur who was, in the free market sense, better than he was. When he saw his vision, his world being removed from him (accelerated by the amazing genetic engineering of plasmids) he saw his control of his world still in the same exact belief system as before. It was his world and he was able to decide what he wanted to do in his own self interest. His philosophy of competition and free market was challenged by multiple sources and he saw his world and property through his own lens of ownership. It was HIS after all, and damn those who challenge him.

The argument in Bioshock is not that Ayn Rand's philosophy is wrong. The argument in Bioshock is that power corrupts. Forget markets, ideologies, governments, any form of power or control over another will lead to an abuse of this power. That's the argument behind Bioshock.

well yes good point. That is why i think its very unefficient for someone to own a whole city privately. Its like a dictatorship. It cant work, there will be so many clash of interests that it will eventualy crumble, even if initially it embraces market anarchy. That said, i expect that in a free society private cities such as rapture wouldnt appear, but another sort of private cities (where the ownership is more equally and naturaly divided) could appear.

[trivas7]

The argument in Bioshock is not that Ayn Rand's philosophy is wrong. The argument in Bioshock is that power corrupts. Forget markets, ideologies, governments, any form of power or control over another will lead to an abuse of this power.
Good argument for the elimination of all government, indeed.

[Dean]

Anyway, Chambers was a gifted writer, working for both Time Magazine and National Review at different points, and I just discovered this beautifully written review of Atlas Shrugged that I find elegant and spot-on. Interesting to me that both communists and anti-communists like Chambers had such disgust for Ayn Rand's vision of the technocratic utopia (my term).

Anyway, I think everyone here except the Ayn Rand partisans (are there any on OI?) will enjoy this concise attack on Atlas Shrugged.

http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback200501050715.asp

Time MAgazine is shit. But regardless, this is eerily reminescent of our own technocrats:


One Big Brother is, of course, a socializing elite (as we know, several cut-rate brands are on the shelves). Miss Rand, as the enemy of any socializing force, calls in a Big Brother of her own contriving to do battle with the other. In the name of free enterprise, therefore, she plumps for a technocratic elite (I find no more inclusive word than technocratic to bracket the industrial-financial-engineering caste she seems to have in mind). When she calls "productive achievement" man's noblest activity," she means, almost exclusively, technological achievement, supervised by such a managerial political bureau. She might object that she means much, much more; and we can freely entertain her objections. (My Emphasis)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Time MAgazine is shit. But regardless, this is eerily reminescent of our own technocrats:

(My Emphasis)

Except for the whole "not regarding most people as parasites" and "Maximum living standards for the greatest amount of people" thing.

[Conquer or Die]

Good argument for the elimination of all government, indeed.

And capitalism ;)

[Zurdito]

I wish we had a propagandist like Ayn Rand on our side.

Sadly we have lots, just read revleft. :( :lol:

[Dean]

Except for the whole "not regarding most people as parasites" and "Maximum living standards for the greatest amount of people" thing.

Yeah, so long as the engineers can have total, exclusory control over the means of production.

[heiss93]

This Ayn Randist Christmas Carol says it all:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4045


I end this essay with a brief dialogue that Dickens should have employed that is somewhat more consistent with reality. Rather than Scrooge being visited by ghosts Bob Cratchit receives the dubious honor. The Ghost of Christmas Past whisks him off and chastises him:

Bob Cratchit! Look how you spent the years of your youth! You who have assumed to sire a family yet wasted this precious time on idle amusements. Your training was not sufficient to provide you with adequate employment; your marriage I declare premature though based upon true affection. Your desire for a family did not equal your need to provide for them. Endless struggle was the result. A string of children increased your burdens. A sick child, Tiny Tim, must suffer needlessly due to your lack of foresight. Look, Bob Cratchit, look and see! You and others like you must beg your fellow man to come to your aid. You eye enviously the wealth of others when the eye of suspicion must focus only upon yourself. It is not Mr. Scrooge you must blame; if you desire more wealth you must prove yourself of more value to him. Or offer your talents to another employer more in need of your services. Use your mind to improve your condition. This Sir is the state of reality; this Sir is what you must comprehend and act upon! Make haste to correct the suffering you have created. Inflame your sense of self interest and prosper before life passes you and yours!

[Zurdito]

^^^brings a tear to my eye.:wub:

[Havet]

There are many misconceptions about Rand. Personally i do not agree with her politics because i find them impractical, and i do not agree with her views on homosexuality, because they are ridiculous. But i still like many of the things she's said.

*SPOILER*

Theres a whole portion of the book where millionaire industrialists are giving up massive industries to go work as pig farmers, mechanics and cleaners in a small valley hidden from governmental reach. The moral being that its better to own everything you earn doing "menial" work, than work as a millionaire industrialist where huge amount of your effort is going to pay bureaucrats who believe you owe them a debt for your success.

Rand also goes to lengths to show that the enjoyment gained from productive activity can be the same, whether it be running a huge rail network, or cooking a simple meal.

[narcomprom]

The one thing I do not despise about Rand, actually, is her writing style. Sure, her characters are horrible cardboard caricatures, her plots are mind-numbingly boring, and her tone is exasperatingly preachy. But you know what? It masterfully serves its purpose. Her writings are among the most successful pieces of naked propaganda in the 20th century.

I wish we had a propagandist like Ayn Rand on our side.
But we've had a lot of unreadable shit like that written in Stalin's times and it continues to be written now in North Korea. Nobody, out of free will, would read that shit. It has to be pressed unto us through school.

Her work is applied marxism. Her success is only due to praising social darwinism so bluntly.

[Pogue]

Rand was not a very rational person. Her theories were ridiculous and totally irrational, but no one really agrees with her so its no problem.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Heh (http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif). :cool:

[Havet]

Heh (http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif). :cool:

Someone also mentioned that in freetalklive forums (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=29686.0)

And i had already mentioned that above:


Well that cartoon is written by someone who obviously hasn't read (or payed attention) to Atlas Shrugged.

*SPOILER*

Theres a whole portion of the book where millionaire industrialists are giving up massive industries to go work as pig farmers, mechanics and cleaners in a small valley hidden from governmental reach. The moral being that its better to own everything you earn doing "menial" work, than work as a millionaire industrialist where huge amount of your effort is going to pay bureaucrats who believe you owe them a debt for your success.

Rand also goes to lengths to show that the enjoyment gained from productive activity can be the same, whether it be running a huge rail network, or cooking a simple meal.

[Dimentio]

Yeah, so long as the engineers can have total, exclusory control over the means of production.

Uh... no.

Those who have the control over the means of production are the people. The people decides what should be produced. The technate could only provide the people with those services, not dictate anything.

[Zurdito]

There are many misconceptions about Rand. Personally i do not agree with her politics because i find them impractical, and i do not agree with her views on homosexuality, because they are ridiculous. But i still like many of the things she's said.

*SPOILER*

Theres a whole portion of the book where millionaire industrialists are giving up massive industries to go work as pig farmers, mechanics and cleaners in a small valley hidden from governmental reach. The moral being that its better to own everything you earn doing "menial" work, than work as a millionaire industrialist where huge amount of your effort is going to pay bureaucrats who believe you owe them a debt for your success.

Rand also goes to lengths to show that the enjoyment gained from productive activity can be the same, whether it be running a huge rail network, or cooking a simple meal.

Maybe, but her style is still infantile and unreadable...

I found Atlas Shrugged for free and was excited, because I thought I had stumbled across an interesting theorist, an intellectual heavyweight, who owuld challenge my ideas, make me refine my thinking, give me a new understanding of libertarianism, etc.

What I got was a "novel" so bad it was physically impossible to read more then 10%, the first 5% for laughing so hard and the second 5% from induced narcolepsy.

[Havet]

Maybe, but her style is still infantile and unreadable...

I found Atlas Shrugged for free and was excited, because I thought I had stumbled across an interesting theorist, an intellectual heavyweight, who owuld challenge my ideas, make me refine my thinking, give me a new understanding of libertarianism, etc.

What I got was a "novel" so bad it was physically impossible to read more then 10%, the first 5% for laughing so hard and the second 5% from induced narcolepsy.

lol i agree, reading atlas shrugged is almost impossible. It took me a year to manage to read it the first time. I don't realy see her style as infantile, but tremendously dense. If she was hoping to spread her ideas in fiction she should have done it differently.

Also, she despised libertarians tremendously:

"That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken.

...Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose"

Taken from the Ayn Rand Institute (http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians)

hehe, pure hatred there, as you can see.