What's with all the Ayn Rand bashing?

[Havet]

There are worse human beings. Why don't you bash them as well? Why not bash Hitler for example? Was it done before already? So was Rand bashing, yet some people here keep on bashing. Why the sudden interest in Rand? She's just a minarchist who wrote some novels. The are plenty other "godawful shit of human beings" out there who deserve much more attention.

Why bash her when there (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini) are (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler) worse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin) people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratko_Mladi%C4%87) to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_w_bush) bash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Akayesu)?

there are still worse people more worthy of revleft's time of bashing.

Hey i don't agree with many things she says, but there is somethings i think she has a point.

I can say Marx was not 100% wrong can you guys say that Rand, Rothbard or Mises got some principles right, or does absolutism create for better blood-sport in these forums?

Also, don't bother posting the stupid and idiotic comments Ayn Rand has said over her course of her life. The point of this thread is to see if you guys and gals can actually agree with something she has said, or if you have become convinced she is wrong for no particular reason.

"Ask yourself whether the dream of heaven and greatness should be waiting for us in our graves - or whether it should be ours here and now and on this earth."

"It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master."

"Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins. When you declare that men are irrational animals and propose to treat them as such, you define thereby your own character and can no longer claim the sanction of reason-as no advocate of contradictions can claim it. There can be no ‘right’ to destroy the source of rights, the only means of judging right and wrong: the mind."

"Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth, the man who would make his fortune no matter where he started."

"When I die, I hope to go to Heaven, whatever the Hell that is."

"“Achieving life is not the equivalent of avoiding death.”"

"The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man's power to conceive- a definition that invalidates man's consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. Man's mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. Man's standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man's power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith. The purpose of man's life is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question."

"I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction."

"There is nothing to take a man's freedom away from him, save other men. To be free, a man must be free of his brothers."

"I shall choose friends among men, but neither slaves nor masters. And I shall choose only such as please me, and them I shall love and respect, but neither command nor obey. And we shall join our hands when we wish, or walk alone when we so desire."

"There are only two means by which men can deal with one another: guns or logic. Force or persuasion. Those who know that they cannot win by means of logic, have always resorted to guns."

[9]

http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/greenspanxyz.jpg

[Raúl Duke]

While there was a bit of bashing before, for some time I was here it was mostly in the background. Perhaps the reason why there's "all this Ayn Rand bashing" is because now we have an influx of libertarians/Miseans/whatevers in OI and thus maybe part of the reason is to annoy these newcomers. If that was the case, then by judging your post, they succeeded.

Perhaps the reason why they don't bash Hitler and Mussolini as much is because we have no fascist/nazi members on this board because, due to the forum's server location, we can't have such members (they are all automatically banned). If we did some posters here would probably be making one-line posts about "follow you leader" (referring to Hitler committing suicide) or posting the picture with this slogan.

In GWB case, that's because his presidency is over and his damage already done.

On Stalin's case, the board seems to not bash him much because it usually leads to long threads of "anti-revisionists Marxists-Leninists" versus "Anarchists, Trots, et. al" and it's been done many times. Although from time to time a thread about Stalin does come up.

On Ratko and Jean Paul's case, it's probably because these 2 figures aren't as widely known.

[Havet]

http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/greenspanxyz.jpg

lol that pic scared me :O

Funny nonetheless. (http://www.mises.org/story/1985)

[Havet]

While there was a bit of bashing before, for some time I was here it was mostly in the background. Perhaps the reason why there's "all this Ayn Rand bashing" is because now we have an influx of libertarians/Miseans/whatevers in OI and thus maybe part of the reason is to annoy these newcomers. If that was the case, then by judging your post, they succeeded.

Hmm..i understand now. Im not really pissed the bashing in itself, but the fact that most of the bashing is done instinctively as if the person, not the arguments, is what matter.


Perhaps the reason why they don't bash Hitler and Mussolini as much is because we have no fascist/nazi members on this board because, due to the forum's server location, we can't have such members (they are all automatically banned). If we did some posters here would probably be making one-line posts about "follow you leader" (referring to Hitler committing suicide) or posting the picture with this slogan. haha that'd be awesome. Its a shame you ban them outright, it kinda cuts a lot of the arguing around here, but I can understand the decision (after all, they are completely opposed to what most people believe here).


On Stalin's case, the board seems to not bash him much because it usually leads to long threads of "anti-revisionists Marxists-Leninists" versus "Anarchists, Trots, et. al" and it's been done many times. Although from time to time a thread about Stalin does come up. Yeah i occasionally see those long ass posts as well.


On Ratko and Jean Paul's case, it's probably because these 2 figures aren't as widely known.

well, perhaps people ought to research more about them then.

[Led Zeppelin]

So we're not allowed to "bash" a particular reactionary unless we bash all reactionaries equally in the same space of time?

I'm pretty sure that's a logical fallacy.

[Havet]

So we're not allowed to "bash" a particular reactionary unless we bash all reactionaries equally in the same space of time?

I'm pretty sure that's a logical fallacy.

I didn't say that. I said people should bash the worst reactionaries more than the "lighter" reactionaries. Although with the current growing number of randroids and minarchists, I know understand why there has been such a high amount of Rand bashing lately.

[Demogorgon]

It goes in phases really. Rand is in-season right now. We will move on.

Of course the nature of an internet forum is we are unlikely to attack anyone too heavily unless someone is willing to argue back in defence of the person. Is anyone here really going to defend one of the architects of the Rwandan Genocide for instance?

[Havet]

Is anyone here really going to defend one of the architects of the Rwandan Genocide for instance?

Let's hope not

[Trystan]

Very few people take Nazism seriously these days. Randism, on the other hand . . . is a dangerous, psychopathic and statist ideology that needs to be stamped out.

[Havet]

Very few people take Nazism seriously these days. Randism, on the other hand . . . is a dangerous, psychopathic and statist ideology that needs to be stamped out.

Totally with you on this. Both objectivism as well as randism (they are two very slightly different things).

[Pogue]

She had ridiculous views based on a position of privilige and intellectual isolation from the realities of everyday life. Her theories sought to create the highest tyranny based upon arogant assumptions of victimhood.

[trivas7]

[...] Randism, on the other hand . . . is a dangerous, psychopathic and statist ideology that needs to be stamped out.
Randians are miniarchists. Hardly the threat you socialists pose as proponents of blatant authoritarian statism.

[Jazzratt]

Well we attack Rand in specific and lolbertarians, minarchists, free privateers etc in this subforum mainly because we discuss our beef with fascists in anti-fascism and our problems (where they exist) with prior "communist" rulers in History or Theory. Here in OI we basically have the politicians of the status quo or the even more toxic ideals of people like Rand to target. It is probably also related to the fact that there are certainly a number of randroids here.

Incidentally no one is ever going to say things that are 100% disagreeable. Not Rand. Not Hitler. Not Mises. No one. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't bash them.

[More Fire for the People]

Ayn Rand bashes herself.

[trivas7]

It is probably also related to the fact that there are certainly a number of randroids here.

Nonsense. Name one.

IMO the reason Rand gets bashed is b/c starting from the same philosophic premise -- materialism -- she comes to the dialectically opposite political conclusion as you collectivists.

[Havet]

Ayn Rand bashes herself.

haha that's right

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I didn't say that. I said people should bash the worst reactionaries more than the "lighter" reactionaries.
Actually, as far as their philosophy is concerned (not their actions, merely their philosophy), I do not believe there are any reactionaries worse than Rand.

In my book, Rand's views are as close as you can possibly get to pure evil.

[khad]

In my book, Rand's views are as close as you can possibly get to pure evil.
You see, the Bolsheviks were humanitarian. They were TOO humanitarian.

[genstrike]

There are worse human beings. Why don't you bash them as well? Why not bash Hitler for example? Was it done before already? So was Rand bashing, yet some people here keep on bashing. Why the sudden interest in Rand? She's just a minarchist who wrote some novels. The are plenty other "godawful shit of human beings" out there who deserve much more attention.

Why bash her when there (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini) are (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler) worse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin) people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratko_Mladi%C4%87) to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_w_bush) bash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Akayesu)?

there are still worse people more worthy of revleft's time of bashing.

I don't understand this. Just because someone is worse, we can't talk about Ayn Rand? If we followed this rule all the time, all political criticism would have to be directed at Hitler and we would be unable to talk about anyone else.

This is an argument for the status quo, and it is the same argument that supporters of Israeli apartheid use against Palestinian solidarity activists: X is worse than Y, so shut the fuck up and stop talking about Y (even though the users of this argument usually don't give two shits about X). If we can only take action on the most objectionable things imaginable, how is anyone ever going to discuss all the other issues?



Hey i don't agree with many things she says, but there is somethings i think she has a point.

I can say Marx was not 100% wrong can you guys say that Rand, Rothbard or Mises got some principles right, or does absolutism create for better blood-sport in these forums?

Oh please, don't pretent to be the only reasonable and rational person on this forum just because you are one of the few who likes Ayn Rand.



Also, don't bother posting the stupid and idiotic comments Ayn Rand has said over her course of her life. The point of this thread is to see if you guys and gals can actually agree with something she has said, or if you have become convinced she is wrong for no particular reason.


First, I don't see how we are supposed to judge any political philosopher by throwing out everything they said. How about if you like Ayn Rand, you don't bother posting anything she ever said that isn't stupid? If I want to argue that Ayn Rand is a racist, how can I do so if you demand that I not even mention Ayn Rand's racist comments?

Second, even of the comments you posted a lot of them are either stupid or have no relationship to the rest of Rand's philosophies. Just a couple examples:



"Ask yourself whether the dream of heaven and greatness should be waiting for us in our graves - or whether it should be ours here and now and on this earth."

I strongly agree with this, and it is remniscient of some classic IWW songs such as The Preacher and the Slave, but the society that Rand and the far-right free market leg-humpers want to create will look more like hell than heaven.




"There are only two means by which men can deal with one another: guns or logic. Force or persuasion. Those who know that they cannot win by means of logic, have always resorted to guns."

And this is just stupid. You can't persuade capitalism to voluntarily kill itself any more than you can convince a bear to stop munching on your leg.




I like to refer to libertarianism as anarchism for rich white kids. It takes some of the anti-authoritarianism aspects of anarchism and twists it around, but it has no conception of class struggle and winds up with an ideology that massively supports the most brutal capitalist state possible (one which protects the right of capital and vehemently refuses to do anything for the working class, such as provide things like healthcare and other essential services) short of fascism. But it lets rich white kids preserve their privileges and run around in some vaguely counterculture manner railing against some sort of evils and posting stupid shit about that neo-fascist assclown Ron Paul on the internet.

[New Tet]

Actually, as far as their philosophy is concerned (not their actions, merely their philosophy), I do not believe there are any reactionaries worse than Rand.

In my book, Rand's views are as close as you can possibly get to pure evil.

To label Rand's shit a "philosophy" is like calling Scientology a religion; it gives it more importance than it deserves.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

To label Rand's shit a "philosophy" is like calling Scientology a religion; it gives it more importance than it deserves.
True, but I used that word for lack of a better one. If I replaced "philosophy" with "cult" in that sentence, I would have implied that all reactionaries followed cults, which would have been unfair to the non-Randians.

[Havet]

I don't understand this. Just because someone is worse, we can't talk about Ayn Rand? If we followed this rule all the time, all political criticism would have to be directed at Hitler and we would be unable to talk about anyone else. Of course you can talk about Rand. I encourage everyone to talk about the bad things she said and the good things she said. I just think she is being given too much attention (although understandably, since the sudden flux of randists and objectivists) while worse people should be discussed.

And i'm pretty sure there's other people to discuss. For example, there's this asshole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratko_Mladi%C4%87), and this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Akayesu), just to name a couple.


This is an argument for the status quo, and it is the same argument that supporters of Israeli apartheid use against Palestinian solidarity activists: X is worse than Y, so shut the fuck up and stop talking about Y (even though the users of this argument usually don't give two shits about X). If we can only take action on the most objectionable things imaginable, how is anyone ever going to discuss all the other issues? Yeah that is an idiotic argument. I hadn't realized what I said could imply this, but if its any consolation, this was not my intention. My intention was merely to focus on greater evils, not to deny their existance and pretend they don't exist. Rand is largely responsible for the huge amount of minarchist capitalists, especially in America, which makes it harder to raise awareness of the actual problems.


Oh please, don't pretent to be the only reasonable and rational person on this forum just because you are one of the few who likes Ayn Rand. This is precisely my point: My concept of liking someone is different than yours. I am capable of recognizing a persons different arguments (even though contradictory) and praise that person for the good things she said and condemn her for the bad things she said, whereas many people here just look at the bad things and imediately start making enemies, or start employing ad hom to escape arguments. That said I "do not like" Rand. I like some things about her, and i dislike/hate other things about her. The good things sort of compensate for the bad things, so she is kind of neutral/lesser evil for me.


First, I don't see how we are supposed to judge any political philosopher by throwing out everything they said. How about if you like Ayn Rand, you don't bother posting anything she ever said that isn't stupid? If I want to argue that Ayn Rand is a racist, how can I do so if you demand that I not even mention Ayn Rand's racist comments?

Second, even of the comments you posted a lot of them are either stupid or have no relationship to the rest of Rand's philosophies. Just a couple examples:You're missing my message: I'm not pretending she hasn't said some awful things. She has, and she's an idiot for that. But make sure you don't pretend as well that she hasn't said anything good either. It is better to judge the arguments first, the person later, than the reverse.

But anyway, you are free to mention her racist comments (I didnt even know she had them), but the point of this thread was to raise awareness that there is more to life than hate, and that one should not dismiss someone's good arguments because that person has also done bad arguments (to imply otherwise would be comitting a hasty generalization.)


And this is just stupid. You can't persuade capitalism to voluntarily kill itself any more than you can convince a bear to stop munching on your leg. And you basically agreed with her.

If I were to take her quote in your perspective, it would be as following:

"There are only two means by which men can deal with one another: guns or logic. Force or persuasion. We, communists, who know that capitalists cannot be reasoned with or engaged in with logic have as our last option to protect ourselves against their oppresion by the means of physical force in defense."



I like to refer to libertarianism as anarchism for rich white kids. It takes some of the anti-authoritarianism aspects of anarchism and twists it around, but it has no conception of class struggle and winds up with an ideology that massively supports the most brutal capitalist state possible (one which protects the right of capital and vehemently refuses to do anything for the working class, such as provide things like healthcare and other essential services) short of fascism. But it lets rich white kids preserve their privileges and run around in some vaguely counterculture manner railing against some sort of evils and posting stupid shit about that neo-fascist assclown Ron Paul on the internet.Well you're mostly describing right-libertarianists, minarchists, objectivists and ancapists. I agree with your analysis, although I don't think that for a kind of ideology to be sound one needs a conception of class struggle. It depends on the ideology's proposed ways to end the current system, which may or may not need a worker struggle against the capitalists.

[Demogorgon]

Actually, as far as their philosophy is concerned (not their actions, merely their philosophy), I do not believe there are any reactionaries worse than Rand.

In my book, Rand's views are as close as you can possibly get to pure evil.
Possibly, though you could argue that some of the extreme Miseans like Hoppe are even worse. It is a bit of a scary thought what Rand might have done had she actually been given power though. When she started implementing her various awful policies and found that "the looters" started using constitutional means to oppose her, not to mention carry out protests, I wonder what she might have done. Certainly according to her they would have been initiating force and would have had to be punished accordingly.

Moreover, what she might have done to quell the social unrest caused by her policies, is also an unpleasant thought.

[anticap]

I take wisdom where I find it. If Hitler said something both original and wise (I'm not aware of it if he did, but I suppose anything is possible), then I'll admit it (although, given his well-deserved status as most-hated-person-ever, I admit that I'd first look for a reformulation of his words by someone less evil).

As for Rand, again, I'm not aware of any wisdom there, or at least nothing original. She basically took a bunch of existing ideas, melted them together, and gave the contents of her bubbling cauldron the self-righteous title "Objectivism."

[IcarusAngel]

One thing I don't get about Ayn Rand is that she said that the most rational men should rule, and that they are right.

Well, the intellectual powerhouses in our society do not agree with Rand's vision, therefore she is wrong.

Noam Chomsky is a far better rationalist than Rand was, and yet Rand's ideology is considered totalitarian by Chomskyite principles.

[trivas7]

One thing I don't get about Ayn Rand is that she said that the most rational men should rule, and that they are right.

Where does she say this?


Well, the intellectual powerhouses in our society do not agree with Rand's vision, therefore she is wrong.
Who are these "intellectual powerhouses" who do not agree w/ Ms. Rand?


Noam Chomsky is a far better rationalist than Rand was, and yet Rand's ideology is considered totalitarian by Chomskyite principles.

This sentence makes no sense at all.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

IMO the reason Rand gets bashed is b/c starting from the same philosophic premise -- materialism -- she comes to the dialectically opposite political conclusion as you collectivists.

I would not dispute that claim. She's like a giant uncanny valley. But there's definitely a fact that opposing ideologies is mostly anarcho-capitalists vs. socialists.

[IcarusAngel]

Where does she say this?

She upholds rationality as a virtue. She believes people who are rational are rewarded. If this is the case, then it stands to reason that the most rational people should be in charge.

As Rand herself states: "Politics is based on three other philosophical disciplines: metaphysics, epistemology and ethics- on a theory of man's nature and of man's relationship to existence. It is only on such a base that one can formulate a consistent political theory and achieve it in practice..."


Who are these "intellectual powerhouses" who do not agree w/ Ms. Rand?

There are very few rationalists who agree with Rand.


This sentence makes no sense at all.

Given: Rationality is the basis for how to construct a good society.
Given: Rationalists should determine the best system, best philosophy.
Given: Noam Chomsky is smarter than Ayn Rand...
Given: Chomsky refutes Rand.

"I strongly dislike the figures you mention. Rand in my view is one of the most evil figures of modern intellectual history. Friedman was an important economist. I'll leave it at that." --Noam Chomsky


Since we construct a society accoridng to our reason, we should listen to someone like Chomsky, over Rand, who, according to her own principles, does not possess the intellect to think rationally about these things.

In fact, here is what Miss Rand said about conservatives: "When, however, men attempt to rush into politics without such a base, the result is that embarrassing conglomeration of impotence, futility, inconsistency and superficiality which is loosely designated today as "conservatism." - Ayn Rand

However, she is the one who is futile, impotent, and inconsistent according people who actually have training in philosophy, ethics, rationality, and reasoning.


So by Randian reasoning Rand shouldn't be taken seriously.

[IcarusAngel]

So creating a class of the powerful, capital elite, who control the resources and who everybody else must listen to, isn't collectivism? A society where people's choices are limited by this powerful elite isn't collectivism?

Welcome to the "logical" thinking of Rand who had zero training in actual logic.

[trivas7]

I would not dispute that claim. She's like a giant uncanny valley. But there's definitely a fact that opposing ideologies is mostly anarcho-capitalists vs. socialists.
Agreed; Rand to be consistent would have been an ancap. For her the state is a concession to "objectivity" in the same manner and for the same reasons Marx embraced statist measures for communist ends.

[trivas7]

Given: Rationality is the basis for how to construct a good society.
Given: Rationalists should determine the best system, best philosophy.
Given: Noam Chomsky is smarter than Ayn Rand...
Given: Chomsky refutes Rand.
[...]

So by Randian reasoning Rand shouldn't be taken seriously.
Wow, that is some of the most convoluted reasoning I ever seen on this forum. :lol:

[IcarusAngel]

First, "givens" are the premises we must accept. They are never really "convoluted."

But second, they are based off her own principles. This isn't unique to Rand. The founders as well taught that "the most capable set of men" must give the laws in any country.

The problem is that Rand had no logical training, which is why she wrote her nonsense in story books rather than in a logically deductive fashion. For you to correct the deduction according to her principles, you'd have to show that rationalists would all agree with Rand's "foundation" for a society. You cannot do this as it was shown in the economics thread you do not know how to reason.

Of course, politics is actually based off of many factors: economics, human nature, coercion, free-will, power, etc., and Rand did not account for all of this in her fairy tales, which is why it ends up being so irrational.

[Robert]

There are worse human beings. Why don't you bash them as well?She hasn't been universally discredited is one explanation. But that doesn't really work, as there are still followers of Hitler, and even they catch less hell around here than do the Randoids (Randroids?)

So maybe she hijacked something that rightfully belonged to the communists. Is she some kind of "Esteban" of philosophy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esteban, appropriately rejecting god and liberalism, but not in an acceptable way?

Or maybe she is today's Emmanuel Goldstein, of 1984 fame, poster boy and symbol for all that is evil, a sanctioned target of hatred and ridicule. There are no more devils, science proves, so we need an Ayn Rand to denounce and her acolytes to bait.

Ayn't them some good theories?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Ayn Rand is notoriously arrogant. On top of that, she provides poor justification for her viewpoints. The former is obvious from her works and historical knowledge. The latter is the widespread opinion an academia.

If someone who holds fundamentally opposed views to you approached you, the chances of you disliking them are significantly higher. Upon encountering them, they present to you a completely terrible argument for the opposing view. Knowing there are plenty of better arguments for the view, you are a bit frustrated. This person is attempting to be original when they lack the intellect to do so properly. Instead, they manipulate literary means to try and persuade you through various fallacies and emotional appeals to common prejudices.

All this comes with a healthy dose of arrogance. Nobody likes an arrogant opponent. Not to mention her photos. No offense, and I don't recommend judging people based on how they look. However, based on cultural stereotypes, she looks arrogant. She also smokes. Nobody likes smokers these days (no offense). People also fear powerful women. Even if we're leftist, sometimes our cultural beliefs manipulate us beyond our knowledge.

Plenty of reasons people don't like Rand. The main reason is she has a cult following of disliking her. Since her ideas are ridiculous and play on the worst of human emotions, we tend to intrinsically see it as an obligation to sensor her. It's like censoring the little voice in your head that says, "go ahead, steal whenever it's convenient." A certain level of common decency is supposed to keep Rand's ideas in check.

Notice how few people who find Rand's ideas compelling were what we'd consider "decent" people in the first place. Their emotional capacity and human "decency" is limited. Rand's ideas appeal to them because they don't have the proper function human traits to intrinsically reject them. Most people call these traits having a conscience, a sense of right and wrong, etc.

[9]

All this comes with a healthy dose of arrogance. Nobody likes an arrogant opponent. Not to mention her photos. No offense, and I don't recommend judging people based on how they look. However, based on cultural stereotypes, she looks arrogant. She also smokes. Nobody likes smokers these days (no offense). People also fear powerful women. Even if we're leftist, sometimes our cultural beliefs manipulate us beyond our knowledge.

Wow. I'm a little embarrassed for you. Of all the things about Rand worthy of criticism, you resort to knee-jerk derision based upon what you perceive as arrogance in old photos? And pray tell, as if I didn't already know the answer, how does her culture play into this? How does her gender play into this? Why is the fact that she smokes (and huge numbers of people smoked back then; cigarettes were endorsed by doctors) of any relevance at all? How can you judge a person based upon the fact that they smoke(d)? Talk about arrogance!

[SouthernBelle82]

While there was a bit of bashing before, for some time I was here it was mostly in the background. Perhaps the reason why there's "all this Ayn Rand bashing" is because now we have an influx of libertarians/Miseans/whatevers in OI and thus maybe part of the reason is to annoy these newcomers. If that was the case, then by judging your post, they succeeded.

Perhaps the reason why they don't bash Hitler and Mussolini as much is because we have no fascist/nazi members on this board because, due to the forum's server location, we can't have such members (they are all automatically banned). If we did some posters here would probably be making one-line posts about "follow you leader" (referring to Hitler committing suicide) or posting the picture with this slogan.

In GWB case, that's because his presidency is over and his damage already done.

On Stalin's case, the board seems to not bash him much because it usually leads to long threads of "anti-revisionists Marxists-Leninists" versus "Anarchists, Trots, et. al" and it's been done many times. Although from time to time a thread about Stalin does come up.

On Ratko and Jean Paul's case, it's probably because these 2 figures aren't as widely known.

And Rand's case they're pretty much still influential in some circles. Why do people still talk about Aristotle and Shakespeare? Same reason's for them with Rand I think (although Rand there is no comparisons).

[SouthernBelle82]

I didn't say that. I said people should bash the worst reactionaries more than the "lighter" reactionaries. Although with the current growing number of randroids and minarchists, I know understand why there has been such a high amount of Rand bashing lately.

Well I don't think it's what you would consider light but the target audience.

[SouthernBelle82]

Very few people take Nazism seriously these days. Randism, on the other hand . . . is a dangerous, psychopathic and statist ideology that needs to be stamped out.

What's funny though is there are conservatives who read her and who are deeply religious and Rand thinks religion is a mental disorder.

[SouthernBelle82]

I don't understand this. Just because someone is worse, we can't talk about Ayn Rand? If we followed this rule all the time, all political criticism would have to be directed at Hitler and we would be unable to talk about anyone else.

This is an argument for the status quo, and it is the same argument that supporters of Israeli apartheid use against Palestinian solidarity activists: X is worse than Y, so shut the fuck up and stop talking about Y (even though the users of this argument usually don't give two shits about X). If we can only take action on the most objectionable things imaginable, how is anyone ever going to discuss all the other issues?




Oh please, don't pretent to be the only reasonable and rational person on this forum just because you are one of the few who likes Ayn Rand.



First, I don't see how we are supposed to judge any political philosopher by throwing out everything they said. How about if you like Ayn Rand, you don't bother posting anything she ever said that isn't stupid? If I want to argue that Ayn Rand is a racist, how can I do so if you demand that I not even mention Ayn Rand's racist comments?

Second, even of the comments you posted a lot of them are either stupid or have no relationship to the rest of Rand's philosophies. Just a couple examples:



I strongly agree with this, and it is remniscient of some classic IWW songs such as The Preacher and the Slave, but the society that Rand and the far-right free market leg-humpers want to create will look more like hell than heaven.




And this is just stupid. You can't persuade capitalism to voluntarily kill itself any more than you can convince a bear to stop munching on your leg.




I like to refer to libertarianism as anarchism for rich white kids. It takes some of the anti-authoritarianism aspects of anarchism and twists it around, but it has no conception of class struggle and winds up with an ideology that massively supports the most brutal capitalist state possible (one which protects the right of capital and vehemently refuses to do anything for the working class, such as provide things like healthcare and other essential services) short of fascism. But it lets rich white kids preserve their privileges and run around in some vaguely counterculture manner railing against some sort of evils and posting stupid shit about that neo-fascist assclown Ron Paul on the internet.

People can walk and chew gum at the same time.

I really like your definition of libertarians! I've also heard them explained as rightwingers who like to smoke pot. I'm glad I'm not the only one who can't stand the phony Ron Paul. :thumbup:

[SouthernBelle82]

Of course you can talk about Rand. I encourage everyone to talk about the bad things she said and the good things she said. I just think she is being given too much attention (although understandably, since the sudden flux of randists and objectivists) while worse people should be discussed.

And i'm pretty sure there's other people to discuss. For example, there's this asshole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratko_Mladi%C4%87), and this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Akayesu), just to name a couple.

Yeah that is an idiotic argument. I hadn't realized what I said could imply this, but if its any consolation, this was not my intention. My intention was merely to focus on greater evils, not to deny their existance and pretend they don't exist. Rand is largely responsible for the huge amount of minarchist capitalists, especially in America, which makes it harder to raise awareness of the actual problems.

This is precisely my point: My concept of liking someone is different than yours. I am capable of recognizing a persons different arguments (even though contradictory) and praise that person for the good things she said and condemn her for the bad things she said, whereas many people here just look at the bad things and imediately start making enemies, or start employing ad hom to escape arguments. That said I "do not like" Rand. I like some things about her, and i dislike/hate other things about her. The good things sort of compensate for the bad things, so she is kind of neutral/lesser evil for me.

You're missing my message: I'm not pretending she hasn't said some awful things. She has, and she's an idiot for that. But make sure you don't pretend as well that she hasn't said anything good either. It is better to judge the arguments first, the person later, than the reverse.

But anyway, you are free to mention her racist comments (I didnt even know she had them), but the point of this thread was to raise awareness that there is more to life than hate, and that one should not dismiss someone's good arguments because that person has also done bad arguments (to imply otherwise would be comitting a hasty generalization.)

And you basically agreed with her.

If I were to take her quote in your perspective, it would be as following:

"There are only two means by which men can deal with one another: guns or logic. Force or persuasion. We, communists, who know that capitalists cannot be reasoned with or engaged in with logic have as our last option to protect ourselves against their oppresion by the means of physical force in defense."


Well you're mostly describing right-libertarianists, minarchists, objectivists and ancapists. I agree with your analysis, although I don't think that for a kind of ideology to be sound one needs a conception of class struggle. It depends on the ideology's proposed ways to end the current system, which may or may not need a worker struggle against the capitalists.

The thing I got out of that is Ayn Rand said something good?

[trivas7]

Wow. I'm a little embarrassed for you. Of all the things about Rand worthy of criticism, you resort to knee-jerk derision based upon what you perceive as arrogance in old photos? And pray tell, as if I didn't already know the answer, how does her culture play into this? How does her gender play into this? Why is the fact that she smokes (and huge numbers of people smoked back then; cigarettes were endorsed by doctors) of any relevance at all? How can you judge a person based upon the fact that they smoke(d)? Talk about arrogance!
Nice post. Ditto. Indeed.

[Havet]

The thing I got out of that is Ayn Rand said something good?

yes, somethings. Not many though.

[Dejavu]

Not all Minarchists are Randroids. Ron Paulites are hardly in tune with any philosophical underpinnings of their own positions.

[Dejavu]

I guess its rather common that a lot of free market advocates are somehow profoundly influenced by Ayn Rand. That is not true for myself or many of my peers I know. I found Rand's work rather lackluster and frankly, boring. Aside from that the internal inconsistencies in her own positions is rather a turn off.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Wow. I'm a little embarrassed for you. Of all the things about Rand worthy of criticism, you resort to knee-jerk derision based upon what you perceive as arrogance in old photos? And pray tell, as if I didn't already know the answer, how does her culture play into this? How does her gender play into this? Why is the fact that she smokes (and huge numbers of people smoked back then; cigarettes were endorsed by doctors) of any relevance at all? How can you judge a person based upon the fact that they smoke(d)? Talk about arrogance!

I was giving reasons why there are a large variety of people who dislike Rand. I wasn't making a claim about me personally or my reasons for disliking Rand. We live in culture where people make subconscious judgments about people based on how they look, what gender they are, what what behaviors they exhibit. Just because you rationally realize these prejudices are false doesn't mean the social prejudices you've been conditioned to believe go away.

Teach a man to be scared every time a black man walks by him.
Teach him the flaw in his racist attitudes.
Wait a minute. He didn't suddenly stop being afraid of black people? What gives? It's called cultural conditioning, and it doesn't disappear overnight.

So yes, people will judge Ayn Rand because she looks arrogant (whatever that means). Yes, they will judge her because she smokes. And yes, they will judge her because she is a women.

Are we pretending prejudices don't exist magically because people realize their wrong. I suspect the fact that Ayn Rand smokes contributes to my dislike of her. Should it? I don't know. I do know my generation was raised to be essentially discriminatory against smokers. I am well aware of her cultural influences and the norms of her time.

Nazism was a norm of its time and place. I still intrinsically judge Nazis based on my own social norms. Smoking is not Nazism in case you're thinking I meant to imply that.

Really, people develop hatreds for very stupid reasons. I doubt the dislike of Rand is based on intellectual reasons. I can talk about Hitler without going nuts. We don't like Rand. Why? There is something missing from the picture. I don't think it's simply her views that cause such vehement responses to her.

[Dimentio]

Ayn Rand is nothing compared to this :D

http://www.savitridevi.org/PDF/lightning.pdf

This takes hilarity to a whole new level.

[SouthernBelle82]

yes, somethings. Not many though.

I have to lol at that. :laugh:

[Zurdito]

To reply to the OP, I just find it funny because it's a rare gift to find an opponent who does a better parody of themselves than you could do of them. Milton Friedman for example just isn't that comical.

For anyone who reads Spanish I really recommend Cosme Beccar Varela, an Argentine aristocrat, lawyer, and blogger, and Catholic fundamentalist who regularly makes calls for inventive forms of mass extermination for some or other non-bourgeois/heterosexual/white group. that guy is even funnier than Ayn Rand but sadly few on revleft speak spanish.:(

[Random Precision]

Possibly, though you could argue that some of the extreme Miseans like Hoppe are even worse.

The Austrian School is like post-graduate work for those Objectivists who are more concerned with being intellectuals. You can only say "A is equal to A" so many times before you begin to suspect you're actually a moron and not an intellectual. They find themselves needing something more complex, if not something more rational, to chew on.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Why bash Ayn Rand?

Because its in our rational self interest to do so.


To reply to the OP, I just find it funny because it's a rare gift to find an opponent who does a better parody of themselves than you could do of them. Milton Friedman for example just isn't that comical.
Exactly.

[Havet]

Why bash Ayn Rand?

Because its in our rational self interest to do so.

Exactly.

and don't forget atlas will shrug when we bash her as well.

oh well...Who is John Galt?

[Demogorgon]

The Austrian School is like post-graduate work for those Objectivists who are more concerned with being intellectuals. You can only say "A is equal to A" so many times before you begin to suspect you're actually a moron and not an intellectual. They find themselves needing something more complex, if not something more rational, to chew on.That's true, though there has been a fair bit of hostility between the two groups as well. Even the Miseans are going to start finding it creepy when faced with the most extreme Randroids who claim it is immoral not to smoke and suchlike. And even moderate Objectivists have certain points of difference too. There is also the more fundamental fact that they are two competing cults who are targeting the same demographic and so will naturally be inclined to do each other down.

You are right however that the extreme end of Austrian economics probably appeals greatly to those who like Rand but find it too simplistic (though some of the Austrians come out with philosophy even more simplistic than Rand herself).

Mind you, to the Miseans' credit, I have at least never seen them come out with anything like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoAWCwm-UXw

[Havet]

Mind you, to the Miseans' credit, I have at least never seen them come out with anything like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoAWCwm-UXw

I watched that before. it is truly horrifying: "When you enter enemy territory, you must assume everyone inside is the enemy"...

"if you believe in self-defense, you fight it to the full (aka invade other countries aka imperialism)"

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I agree with the OP.

Beating a randroid is like beating someone at checkers at a chess tournament.

And come one, people on here take the Randroids waaaay to seriously. Winning an argument against a Libertarian then having a sense of accomplishment is like winning a foot race against someone with cerebral palsy and giving yourself a medal afterwards.


I think that what's happening is Communists, Libertarians, White Supremacists, and all the other fringe types are sent to the kids table here online where we can chuck mashed potatos at each other while the adults in the other room drink all the good wine, trying to become oblivious to the fact that any of us are in the kiddy room.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Randians are miniarchists. Hardly the threat you socialists pose as proponents of blatant authoritarian statism.

Why do you still post? You never contribute anything worth reading.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Can anyone point to one thing she brought up that Aristotle didn't touch on? It would seem that her own criticism of post-Roman philosophy was self-reflective. I don't know, maybe I'm naive, but I think Marx proactively established himself as the superior to Rand by putting into full effective an analysis of history - you know, something more comprehensive than taking Freud's id and making an ideology out of it. From my readings of Rand, she just rephrased existing ideas (like egoism) to make them more appealing to narcissists.

"Hate" is a strong word, but she's a delinquent theorist for delinquent minds, and I certainly "hate" her ideas.

[Bud Struggle]

Ayn Rand is nothing compared to this :D

http://www.savitridevi.org/PDF/lightning.pdf

This takes hilarity to a whole new level.

Thanks for the link. She's a real hoot! I don't think I'll get through the entire book, but her pomposity definitely is entertaining. :lol:

[IcarusAngel]

I think that what's happening is Communists, Libertarians, White Supremacists, and all the other fringe types are sent to the kids table here online where we can chuck mashed potatos at each other while the adults in the other room drink all the good wine, trying to become oblivious to the fact that any of us are in the kiddy room.

I once heard a saying, I don't recall where or when, that extremist groups sometimes "cancel" each other out, perhaps permitting the ruling class to rule even further.

So, in the case of left-wing anarchists/non-statist socialists, they cancel out the Miseans. Or, they make enough arguments against the Miseans that can be used by the ruling class to discredit the Miseans, and vice versa. In much the same way maybe Malcom x rhetoric canceled out David Duke rhetoric, and vice versa. Sometimes conservatives even lump modern civil rights advocates in with the Klan. And maybe the Klan got some of what they want (a continuing underclass of minorities) and the radicials got something they want (an end to certain types of legislative slavery).

The thing is the left has to fight the extreme capitalists while at the same time they are trying to fight the system, lest the system get too powerful.

Then again, I've also heard the saying good people make a bad system hard to change (Graham Greene, the Quiet American).

So, maybe in a hundred or two hundred years from now, people will look at the capitalist class the way they look at slave owners today - with utter contempt at how people could be so malicious and brutal.

Furthermore, on the internet, even the mainstream do nothing more than shillyshally and act like idiots, so you can't pick a side based on net activity.

Plus, at least some socialists have been influential thinkers: Chomsky, Einstein, Russell, etc., have millions of fans, although admittedly not necessarily from their political work, but academic works as well.

[trivas7]

So, in the case of left-wing anarchists/non-statist socialists, they cancel out the Miseans.
OTC, ancaps are the Miseans.

[trivas7]

Can anyone point to one thing she brought up that Aristotle didn't touch on? It would seem that her own criticism of post-Roman philosophy was self-reflective. I don't know, maybe I'm naive, but I think Marx proactively established himself as the superior to Rand by putting into full effective an analysis of history - you know, something more comprehensive than taking Freud's id and making an ideology out of it. From my readings of Rand, she just rephrased existing ideas (like egoism) to make them more appealing to narcissists.

She consistently applied objectivity to all areas of philosophy. She thought her greatest contribution was in epistemology.

Marx's materialist conception of history makes a ideology of an ahistorical merger of Hegel's logic and Feuerbachian materialism. Cookie-cutter thinking re economic formations and an arbitrarily metaphysical class analysis (thinking in groups) were the result.

[mikelepore]

Why bash her when there are worse people to bash?

Because there are many of her readers who say in public forums that her despicable message is "freedom", "respect for the individual", etc., which is annoying.

Because some people go around claiming that it's a serious and respectable branch of "philosophy" to spout the Ebenezer Scrooge attitude, I've got mine so to hell with you, which is annoying.

Because when there are people whose sense of right and wrong is so warped that, when they want to insult someone they call them an altruist, and when they want to give someone a compliment they call them selfish, it's annoying.

Because when people make the implausible leap of logic from "objectivism" to a choice of economic system, they think it's a coherent argument to say that physical reality objectively exists, therefore, capitalism is the best economic system, and when saying such a thing isn't readily recognized by some college educated people as being totally idiotic, it's annoying.

[SoupIsGoodFood]

Her political ideas were fucked but I'm not going to judge her as person because of it.

[Demogorgon]

Because when people make the implausible leap of logic from "objectivism" to a choice of economic system, they think it's a coherent argument to say that physical reality objectively exists, therefore, capitalism is the best economic system
Ueah, it is that utter non-sequitur that always strikes me. I remember aeguing with one once and I made an argument regarding some economic matter, I can't remember what exactly, but it was the sort of thing you'll see me discuss here quite often and got back "how can you deny objective reality exists?" Say what?

In some cases that is a stalling tactic to force the debate opponent to stop and work out exactly what the objectivist is talking about and hopefully forgetting their original economic argument as they get drawn into this rather surreal one, but they also seem to genuinely be that it is simply the natural and obvious conclusion from the position that there is objective reality that dog eats dog capitalism is the only moral and desirable system.

[trivas7]

Ueah, it is that utter non-sequitur that always strikes me. I remember aeguing with one once and I made an argument regarding some economic matter, I can't remember what exactly, but it was the sort of thing you'll see me discuss here quite often and got back "how can you deny objective reality exists?" Say what?

To be fair Marx assumes the very same objectivity re reality. That's what philosophical materialism means.

[mikelepore]

that utter non-sequitur that always strikes me.

Another one I often find with them is this:

I have argued the point that society doesn't need an owner and investor class, that the workers produce the wealth and the workers can also administer it. The way I often word it is to say that industry needs to choose managers, but use one-person one-vote, and not one-share one-vote. I also argue for supplying the industries with all necessary resources by directly allocating those resources out of the inventory of all of society's products, so there would be no such thing as raising private capital.

So they invariably come back with the reply: Can't you see that the wealth doesn't grow on trees? Look, everybody, this Lepore guy thinks that the wealth just grows on trees!

[mikelepore]

This one always makes me howl, or groan perhaps. When they say that the way wealthy people got wealthy in the first place was by "deferring consumption", "the smart individual decided not to spend it but instead to save it", and "kept doing for such a long time that the person eventually acquired lot of money". Then I'm thinking to myself, uh, right, so we never see any wealthy people who have large houses or fancy vacations? They go without buying luxuries, so that they will have a lot of cash in the bank instead of the luxuries? I'm amazed that people who say such things, one, were born on the same planet as me, and, two, have actually gone to school or out of the house at all.

[mikelepore]

To be fair Marx assumes the very same objectivity re reality. That's what philosophical materialism means.

And all scientists. And almost everyone else. Except for George Berkeley who has been dead for 250 years. And perhaps the Hare Krishnas.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Marx's materialist conception of history makes a ideology of an ahistorical merger of Hegel's logic and Feuerbachian materialism. Cookie-cutter thinking re economic formations and an arbitrarily metaphysical class analysis (thinking in groups) were the result.You must be fairly blind to the happenings of real world events if you don't acknowledge "mob consciousness" as a potent locomotive to history. Marx's addressing different positions of power relative to the use of resources was much less arbitrary than Rand's justifications for capitalism. When people are downtrodden, they tend to identify with peers that share the same conditions, barring external interventions that keep them placid. That is an elementary summary of Marx's class analysis, and is indisputable. You say:


She consistently applied objectivity to all areas of philosophy. I say the only thing "consistent" and "objective" about her ideology was a recognition that humans are selfish, if you extend the definition of selfishness to encompass all cognitive thoughts. Yet, as I said, Aristotle (and Stirner) had her beat. Attacking religious altruism is nothing ground-breaking. Her inability to recognize the benefits of mutual cooperation, however, do not go unnoticed. I refer to the studies of Darwin and later Kropotkin.

For example, her ethical defense of minarchism derives entirely from an extra-objectivist perspective, yet she would never acknowledge as much. Her fear of anarchism leading to "violations of the individual" do not correlate to the statement "all humans are selfish in nature." Since selfish desires do compete, the implementation of minarchism is antithetical to the original remark for us imbeciles who apparently do all the mechanical work for the "divine industrialists" but can't seem to construct robots like them.

In fact - dare I say it - she's almost adhering to philosophical mutualism?

[trivas7]

You must be fairly blind to the happenings of real world events if you don't acknowledge "mob consciousness" as a potent locomotive to history.

Nope, human beings are not the Borg -- they don't share a hive consciousness -- whatever you believe re history. Pretending this is the case makes Marx wrong re social change.

I say the only thing "consistent" and "objective" about her ideology was a recognition that humans are selfish, if you extend the definition of selfishness to encompass all cognitive thoughts. Yet, as I said, Aristotle (and Stirner) had her beat. Attacking religious altruism is nothing ground-breaking. Her inability to recognize the benefits of mutual cooperation, however, do not go unnoticed. I refer to the studies of Darwin and later Kropotkin.

Your point is well taken re Rand's inability to recognize the benefits of mutual co-operation, I'm not going to defend her. Her commitment to objectivity lead her to posit a miniarchism that, as you say, is contrary to her understanding of man, in the same way and for the same reasons that Marx was lead to endorse statist means to implement anarchist ends (i.e. a prior commitment to Hegelian logic).

[Robert]

Many of you guys are helping prove the OP's point. Are Randroids dangerous or something? The closest thing I can think of to an adherent of Ayn Rand who even wanted power is the former Libertarian Ron Paul. And Ayn Rand hated Libertarians, as I understand it. :lol:

Why not whale on him instead of these obscure Miseans or Ayn Rand?

Is it possible that the anti-Rand crusaders are paranoid or something? This obsession with proving her wrong or stupid just seems nuts, way disproportionate to her importance.

[Mo212]

Many of you guys are helping prove the OP's point. Are Randroids dangerous or something? The closest thing I can think of to an adherent of Ayn Rand who even wanted power is the former Libertarian Ron Paul. And Ayn Rand hated Libertarians, as I understand it. :lol:

Why not whale on him instead of these obscure Miseans or Ayn Rand?

Is it possible that the anti-Rand crusaders are paranoid or something? This obsession with proving her wrong or stupid just seems nuts, way disproportionate to her importance.


Ayn rand gets a lot of flack only because she is widely read enough to influence intellectually naive people, her works continue to misinform the people and the world, and it's annoying to constantly have to undo the damange such stupid people leave in their wake.

The truth is every group has it enemies, some are focused on more then others only because of their accessabiltiy and because they are well known, no one focuses on people that are obscure and had no influence.

[Kronos]

Rand saw her views as constituting an integrated philosophical system, which she called "Objectivism". The essence of Objectivism, according to Rand, is "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

Modern man cannot be a 'heroic' being. Heroism ended at the Enlightenment. From that moment forward, modern man became a simulation of heroism, an embarrassing pretension of heroism. Modern civilization is too simple and easy to produce a hero.

'Happiness' is not the 'moral purpose' of life. Power is the purpose. The translation of Randian 'happiness' into the 'successful capitalist' is not an expression of power, but an expression of opportunism. The successful, modern capitalist is the epitome of decadence and weakness. His exploitation of the noble, proletariat is no different than the exploitation of the peasant/worker by the despotic ruling class. Both are parasites- they produce nothing.

'Productive achievement', she says. Apparently Rand does not understand how the modes of production operate in a capitalist economic system. She seems to think the person who owns the means of production actually does the producing?

What a knucklehead.

'Reason as his only absolute'?

Nope. Passion is his absolute, and power the motivating force behind all morality....not 'success'. Man will risk his very being in an effort to gain more power, therefore, it is not survival but more power, that man seeks.

Really folks, Rand is a pop-philosopher used as a form of propaganda to inspire half-wit college students. She was 'what happens' in philosophy once post-structuralism has put an end to the history of philosophy. She is the 'left-overs'.

As I've said before, she is a watered-down Nietzsche who's philosophy does not tell the whole truth, but rather a truth modified and adapted to inspire a legal, civil, domesticated form of individualism. You see in her philosophy how she balances on a fence- she is on the verge of nihilism....but then through a sleight-of-hand, she recovers the philosophy by asserting that 'reason' is the highest virtue. Ha! What a flake.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Nope, human beings are not the Borg -- they don't share a hive consciousness -- whatever you believe re history. Pretending this is the case makes Marx wrong re social change.In other words, you prefer to scrutinize a "make believe" Marx invented by the college undergrads at Mises.org instead of the actual theorist. I would like to see one quote, taken in context, that points to Marx believing in hive consciousness versus mob consciousness. The two are not synonymous.

If you deny Marx's perspective of collective action, you deny "groupthink." Sometimes temporarily conforming to a growing, popular mindset is a good way to surge action into fruition. It's what contributed to the success of the civil rights movement.


in the same way and for the same reasons that Marx was lead to endorse statist means to implement anarchist ends Marx recognizing that society would not suddenly lose its statist exterior in the course of a few decades is a completely different animal than defending minarchism indefinitely. If Marx had thought anarchism was immediately possible, do you think he would have still favored a workers' state? Probably not. But for Rand, an anarchist ends was antithetical to her goal of a society that (ironically) mutually respects individuals within the framework of capitalism.

If Rand had fully acknowledged the difference between "mutual" selfish actions and "non-mutual" selfish actions, she may have more credence outside of the radical fringes on the right.