Criticisms of Ayn Rand?

[N3p7uN3]

I'm reading Atlas Shrugged at the moment for a scholarship essay, and I was wondering if there any works in response/rebuttal to her philosophy of Objectivism and her ideas of how human society should function. I do believe she brings up good arguments against communism, however I'm not bought over. I'd like to hear some arguments against how she depicts the 'failure' of the so-called 'looters'.

Personal opinions would be nice too!

(Please do not start ranting about how she's capitalist scum who knows nothing, I'd like some professional arguments.)

[Nwoye]

her critique of communism is a giant straw man. She says "to each according to his needs" means some people will become slaves to others with exuberant needs - even though Marx only thought this theory of distribution should be applied in an economy of relative abundance. In addition, her ethical theory of egoism is absolute nonsense. In application, someone becoming an egoist and telling someone else to become an egoist is engaging in a performative contradiction where his actions don't match his philosophy of egoism.

[N3p7uN3]

Well, define egoism?

I at least must agree with Rand that people should at least strive to be happy in their lives and do the best to their ability, I don't think many could object to that. But the way she preaches this is to gain a complete disregard for the feelings of others, only doing what is good for themselves even if it may cost others psychologically/physically. This is why I would never agree with her because she's the most selfish person I've yet to hear about.

[griffjam]

Where in the World is John Galt

The neo-conservative 'movement' in the last few decades has essentially been a monstrous circle jerk between Christianist theocrats, crypto-Fascists, and political-economic Libertopains; three distinct, and one might think in a lot of ways incompatible, varieties of counter factual lunacy somehow merged into a monstrous ass-beast of scum-sucking political vileness. It really is entertaining and more than a little validating to watch this creature sink into the toxic morass of its own creation, desperately throwing out line after line in an attempt to heave itself back onto the shores of relevance. The latest notion cooked up by the leading lights in their eternal quest to regain some sort of moral high ground is the notion that of 'Going Galt (http://redtory.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/%E2%80%9Cgoing-galt%E2%80%9D/).'

For those of you who managed to avoid a brief, unfulfilling college fling with Ayn Rand, let me introduce you to John Galt, main character of her capitalist slash fanfic Atlas Shrugged (http://www.amazon.ca/Atlas-Shrugged-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451191145). (Spoiler alert!) He's such an amazing super-genius that he was able to invent an engine that makes electricity out of air. But when the gosh darn gubmint took it into their sleazy communist hearts to force him to use his invention for the good of others, he just took it and up and left. He went out to found a city where everyone could live free from the evil of socioeconomic redistribution, and convinced all the great capitalists, artists, scientists, and other worthwhile people to join him as the world fell into decay under the hands of petty bureaucratic tyrants.

I have to admit, I thoroughly enjoyed Atlas Shrugged. I liked it in the same way I like slasher flicks and super-hero comics; it's a philosophical cartoon, intellectual pabulum for people who aren't ready to deal with the complexities and compromises of serious political and moral thought. But I never imagined it was a plausible representation of reality. To this day, when I meet someone who never managed to get over their juvenile Rand infatuation and thinks of themselves as a genuine dyed-in-the-wool Objectivist, I think about the same thing as I do when I meet serious bible-believing Christians: "You seriously believe that crap?" And the idea of people trying to 'go Galt' in real life strikes me about the same as people putting on a cape and thinking they can take down the mafia, or running around in a hockey mask taking a machete to stupid teenagers.

There are three classes of people in Atlas Shrugged. There are the super-smart and super-heroic super-capitalists whose brilliant entrepreneurship shills keep the economy turning over; there are villainous parasites whose only means of not starving to death in the street is to leech off the productivity of the super-capitalists, be it by robbing them at knife point, by getting their shrewish mothers to guilt their hard-working brothers into giving them a cushy job, or by infiltrating the government and passing laws that raise taxes and commandeer hard won capital. Then there are, implicit but almost never even mentioned, all the 'little people' who actually do all the work. You know, the farmers, the factory workers, the shop keepers, and suchlike. Rand's world is a vast fictional explication of the concept of 'social darwinism'; through absolute selfish competition, those who are fittest rise to the top and collect the bulk of the wealth, and everyone else gets whatever level of power and wealth they are competent to handle. This is not only a social reality but a moral imperative; anyone who tries to interfere with the function of the free market is a sinful parasite, and anyone preaching the virtues of altruism and the 'duty' of people to help the less fortunate is just trying to get theirs by subterfuge instead of honest hard work.

Or, you know, by skimming the cream off the hard work of others, because that's what capitalism is in reality. No mention is made of how Galt's Gulch feeds itself, of how a bunch of investor/inventors engaged in a kind of extreme tax evasion managed to convince people to come work in their factories (or even build them). Presumably Galt and his cronies did it all themselves. The idea is more or less the same as an anarcho-syndicalist commune, except that everyone's working for wages and gets to buy each others products, and magically nobody falls to the bottom of the economic heap because they're all magic super-capitalists (or if they do, they're happy about it because they're fulfilling their maximum potential in life while getting the moral satisfaction of sticking it to those parasites outside); and if there's a fire or they get sick they'll most certainly have insurance, and if the commies come along to rob them of their capital they'll all just pick up their guns and fight back. In fact, the concept of 'going Galt' is lifted from Anarchism hook line and sinker; but where Anarchism is about people working together to free themselves from tyranny, going Galt is about declaring yourself to be intrinsically better than the masses of poor and the working class by virtue of your ability to stack up worthless pieces of paper via usury.

These people think they're going to make the economy grind to a halt by not 'working'? I'd love to see them try! Where exactly do they think their wealth is going to come from without thousands upon thousands of 'little people' providing the muscle behind their profits? Imagining a bunch of effete bankers, lawyers, bloggers, and corporate CEOs deliberately putting themselves into such dire poverty that they're reduced to the level of the people they exploit amuses me even more than watching some maniac cut people to pieces. Let them go out into the wilderness and try to build their little Libertopian society. I'll lay odds they're back within 6 months, begging for their old jobs back.


How to be an Objectivist in 10 Easy Steps
http://www.revleft.com/vb/become-objectivist-ten-t112303/index.html?t=112303

Ayn Rand Character Flow Chart
http://www.revleft.com/vb/ayn-rand-character-t113155/index.html?t=113155

[Nwoye]

Well, define egoism?
Considering that Objectivists tend to change their interpretation of Rand's egoism depending on how you critique it, could you give me your understanding of her ethical theory? I mean, I've literally asked objectivists what Rand's egoism is, had it explained, critiqued it, and then had the definition of egoism changed so as to avoid the critique. I define egoism as "holding one's own self-interest as the highest moral end".


I at least must agree with Rand that people should at least strive to be happy in their lives and do the best to their ability
This a rather useless philosophical or ethical principle to hold. It doesn't really get us anywhere, as it's very vague; and also it's basically unobjectionable, as you've pointed out. It's not like I disagree with you - in fact I think that's a rather fundamental value of all political philosophies - you just need to expand on this thought. What kind of material conditions must exist for someone to "do the best to their ability?". What kind of social system is most conducive to this end? Is this a universally applicable goal (meaning can it consistently be applied to everyone)? etc etc.

[Bankotsu]

For a decade after 1931, my chief intellectual concern was the growth of the European State in the old regime, before 1789. I dreamed that at some date in the future, perhaps thirty years in the future, I would write the definitive history of the growth of public authority and the development of the European State.

But after 1941 I had to abandon the project because I was to busy with my teaching -- which I enjoyed thoroughly -- and no longer had access to an adequate library.

After all, I discovered that other historians were becoming so narrowly specialized, and their historical concepts so inadequate, that it was almost impossible to explain to them what had happened in the growth of the state. They lacked the conceptual paradigms, the knowledge of comparative developments, and even the understanding of their own specialities to grasp a subject as broad as and of such long duration as the growth of public authority over the last thousand years.

Anyone who does not understand the long term development of this subject cannot understand the more limited aspects of it in more recent periods. But modern historians are increasingly specialized in narrow ranges of chronology, geographic area, and aspects of changing events.

Let me give you a few examples of how the lack of adequate paradigms blocks our understanding of the history of our subject.

The area of political action in our society is a circle on which at least four actors may intervene: the government, individuals, communities, and voluntary associations, especially corporations. Yet, for the last century, discussion of political actions, and especially the controversies arising out of such actions, have been carried on in terms of only two actors, the government and the individual.

Nineteenth century books often assume a polarization of the individual versus the state, while many twentieth century books seek to portray the state as the solution to most individuals' problems.

Conservatives, from von Hayek to Ayn Rand, now try to curtail government on the excuse that this will give more freedom to individuals, while liberals try to destroy communities with the aim of making all individuals identical, including boys and girls.

And since what we get in history is never what any one individual or group is struggling for, but is the resultant of diverse groups struggling, the area of political action will be increasingly reduced to an arena where the individual, detached from any sustaining community, is faced by gigantic and irresponsible corporations...


http://www.scribd.com/doc/13458196/Prof-Carroll-Quigley-The-Oscar-Iden-LecturesLecture-1-The-State-of-Communities

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14819541/Prof-Carroll-Quigley-The-Oscar-Iden-LecturesLecture-2-The-State-of-Estates

http://www.scribd.com/doc/7529218/Prof-Carroll-QuigleyThe-Oscar-Iden-Lectures-Lecture-3-The-State-of-Individuals

[MarxSchmarx]

Here are some starting points for criticism:
http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2005w48/msg00047.htm

Nozick, Robert. (Spring 1971). "On the Randian Argument". The Personalist 52: 282-304

There have also been quite a few books criticizing rand, Can't say i've read them all but here are some:

http://www.amazon.com/Answer-Ayn-Rand-philosophy-objectivism/dp/B0006CEEUE

http://www.solopassion.com/node/1012
http://www.amazon.com/Charity-Toward-None-Analysis-Philosophy/dp/0822601796

Probably the most damning:

http://www.amazon.com/Objectivism-Corruption-Rationality-Critique-Epistemology/dp/0595267335

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

This is a message I sent to some objectivist who ended up claiming that slavery was immoral because it was altruistic(!) since the master was providing for slaves who couldn't provide for themselves.


Ayn Rand actually says a lot of things that sound like they could have come from an anti-capitalist, but she uses this rhetoric to defend capitalism.

A prime example of this is when she says people deserve the fruits of their own labor, but then she supports an economic system based on transferring wealth created by the labor of many to a minority.

Compare to Marx when he says, for example:

Our great aim must, therefore, be to supersede those institutions which give to some people, during their lifetime, the economical power of transferring to themselves the fruits of labor of the many. ~ Karl Marx

Or when he describes workers in a future society: "The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another. "

And some interesting ones concerning free will:

"Is it not a delusion to substitute for the individual with his real motives, with multifarious social circumstances pressing upon him, the abstraction of free-will — one among the many qualities of man for man himself!" [Because no man is independent of the society around him, and it will for the most part determine his actions.]

Or

"Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past."

"It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness."

Some of the "best" Rand quotes I am familiar with:

Rand: "Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: No. Altruism says: Yes."

Can this really be reconciled with capitalism? In capitalism the majority of society is forced to labor for the profits of a capitalist minority if they wish to survive. Their ability to live - to exist - is dependant upon their willingness to labor for the benefits of others. If they can not find a buyer for their labor in a free market, then they face starvation. If they resist being forced to work for a pittance, they can be replaced. If there is a downturn in the market, they will be fired. They are only allowed to live as long as they are able to produce a surplus for non-laboring property owners. Does this not sound like a sacrificial animal? Is not the purpose of the working class to provide for the needs of capital? Is the issue really should I have to help beggars dime by dime, or is it should I be forced by economic relations, inscribed in law, to give my labor, surplus by surplus, to a parasitic class with a monopoly on the means of producing the things society needs to live?

Rand: "Man—every man—is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life."

This can not be reconciled with capitalism either. Compare this with Marxian Alienation, where he touches on the idea that mans human essence must not become a means for others ends. In the words of Erich Fromm, the worker, having no part in the direction of the work, being "employed" as part of the machines he serves, is transformed into a thing in its dependence on capital. Marx's aim is not limited to the emancipation of the working class, but the emancipation of the human being through the restitution of the unalienated and hence free activity of all men, and a society in which man, and not the production of things, is the aim, in which man ceases to be "a crippled monstrosity, and becomes a fully developed human being." In the words of Marx, "It cannot be otherwise in a mode of production in which the laborer exists to satisfy the need of self-expansion of existing values, instead of on the contrary, material wealth existing to satisfy the needs of development on the part of the laborer." "Within the capitalist system all methods for raising the social productiveness of labor are brought about at the cost of the individual laborer; all means for the development of production transform themselves into means of domination over, and exploitation of, the producers; they mutilate the laborer into a fragment of a man, degrade him to the level of an appendage of a machine, destroy every remnant of charm in his work and turn it into a hated toil." We can not be an end in ourselves under capitalism, because our interests will always be subordinated to the interests of the capitalist. Our happiness is sacrificed for their individual gain. In capitalism, the products of our own labor, capital, dominate us, and laborers are simply a means to produce wealth for the capitalists. Marx argues that society, in socialism, will be the other way around. The purpose of the means of production will be to produce wealth for the workers.

Now, since capitalism is not in my self interest, I will remain a socialist. Unless you're not a worker or someone unaffected by the problems capitalism spawns, I doubt its in your interests either.

[N3p7uN3]

Considering that Objectivists tend to change their interpretation of Rand's egoism depending on how you critique it, could you give me your understanding of her ethical theory? I mean, I've literally asked objectivists what Rand's egoism is, had it explained, critiqued it, and then had the definition of egoism changed so as to avoid the critique. I define egoism as "holding one's own self-interest as the highest moral end".

Well the general idea she preaches is to strive for the "best in oneself". What I think this means is, in a literal sense, do everything to their best of their ability to make themselves proud of their own achievements. She also preaches for giving nothing to no one, only what you "earn", which most of the super wealthy bourgeoisie in the book believe. She almost describes these ethical "elite" to be similar to Prometheus, where the proletariat always sucks capital out of them by government regulations, taxes and moral demands for society. According to her, the more you try to accomplish, the harder society 'pushes' down on you. (This is why Atlas Shrugged apparently lol)



This a rather useless philosophical or ethical principle to hold. It doesn't really get us anywhere, as it's very vague; and also it's basically unobjectionable, as you've pointed out. It's not like I disagree with you - in fact I think that's a rather fundamental value of all political philosophies - you just need to expand on this thought. What kind of material conditions must exist for someone to "do the best to their ability?". What kind of social system is most conducive to this end? Is this a universally applicable goal (meaning can it consistently be applied to everyone)? etc etc.Well the message I was trying to convey is that people should do a job worth or something they should be proud for, knowing that they did their best. Obviously, a worker would have to be doing a job they are seriously passionate about to care this much about the good/service being produced. And no, this would not be universal as not everyone is necessarily happy with what they are doing as a job.

[N3p7uN3]

For a decade after 1931, my chief intellectual concern was the growth of the European State in the old regime, before 1789. I dreamed that at some date in the future, perhaps thirty years in the future, I would write the definitive history of the growth of public authority and the development of the European State.

But after 1941 I had to abandon the project because I was to busy with my teaching -- which I enjoyed thoroughly -- and no longer had access to an adequate library.

After all, I discovered that other historians were becoming so narrowly specialized, and their historical concepts so inadequate, that it was almost impossible to explain to them what had happened in the growth of the state. They lacked the conceptual paradigms, the knowledge of comparative developments, and even the understanding of their own specialities to grasp a subject as broad as and of such long duration as the growth of public authority over the last thousand years.

Anyone who does not understand the long term development of this subject cannot understand the more limited aspects of it in more recent periods. But modern historians are increasingly specialized in narrow ranges of chronology, geographic area, and aspects of changing events.

Let me give you a few examples of how the lack of adequate paradigms blocks our understanding of the history of our subject.

The area of political action in our society is a circle on which at least four actors may intervene: the government, individuals, communities, and voluntary associations, especially corporations. Yet, for the last century, discussion of political actions, and especially the controversies arising out of such actions, have been carried on in terms of only two actors, the government and the individual.

Nineteenth century books often assume a polarization of the individual versus the state, while many twentieth century books seek to portray the state as the solution to most individuals' problems.

Conservatives, from von Hayek to Ayn Rand, now try to curtail government on the excuse that this will give more freedom to individuals, while liberals try to destroy communities with the aim of making all individuals identical, including boys and girls.

And since what we get in history is never what any one individual or group is struggling for, but is the resultant of diverse groups struggling, the area of political action will be increasingly reduced to an arena where the individual, detached from any sustaining community, is faced by gigantic and irresponsible corporations...



I'm lost as to what this post means...

[rednordman]

I at least must agree with Rand that people should at least strive to be happy in their lives and do the best to their ability, I don't think many could object to that. But the way she preaches this is to gain a complete disregard for the feelings of others, only doing what is good for themselves even if it may cost others psychologically/physically. This is why I would never agree with her because she's the most selfish person I've yet to hear about.My jaw has just dropped at reading that about her. At least she has some logic. The main thing that I would say is that communists/anarchists etc should believe that everyone should their best for society and be happy in their lives, She, as far as i have heard, totally rejected the notion of society.

She believed in a world full of individuals, completely seperated from each other. People just had to co-operate with each other, and work for their own selfish ends, as the whole notion of a collective belonging, and responsiblily was to her, totalitarian and forcing the individual to be 'brought down to the levels of the lowest achievers' or even 'held back by society'.

When assessing things she believed in, it for me becomes more and more obvious that her ideals were to put it kindly, absurd. Afterall, you only have to look at the capitalist world at its advanced stage, to see that no countries have ever taken her line on individuality, as gospel.

The funny thing is that when people praise todays world as a great triumph of freedom and liberty, you only have to walk to the local shops, and hear about crime on TV (or experience it first hand) to understand that its rubbish. And we generally still have a notion of society, if only a watered down one. Imagine how bad things would get if we really did toe her line.

I must stress here that this based on things that I have heard about her. I am no expert, and have alot of reading to do (mabey i will convert!!!:crying::D). Its just I think that it wouldnt be very hard to refute her arguements from what i have heard and read.

[ChrisK]

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn-www.cracked.com%2Farticleimages%2Fwong%2Faynrand%2 Farflowchart2copy.png&h=b674908a90b7bc8d06ffbfb75c239e5d

I think this does the job well.

[Pantaloons]

Ayn Rand wrote a book called Anthem. It was the only Rand book I ever read. The "hero" lives in a dictatorial society, imagine a futuristic Stalinist regime conjured up out of the stereotypical thinking of the bourgeois mind. In this society it is forbidden to use the words "I" or "me". The hero's road to self-discovery lies in his embracing his individual identity. However, the whole thing came off to me as egotistical, self-centered, slave-owner thinking. Rand often appeals to teenagers who are just discovering their identities. As far as I can tell she was a repressed lesbian who bullied her own "objectivist" followers and treated them like dirt. Anthem never even rose to the anti-communist literary standards of Zemyatin's "WE". Objectivism as a philosophy justifies the position of capitalists in society. This is why it is all about the "great man". At the root of Any Rand's thinking is the primacy of the great man theory of history. Her heros are like little modern El Cids who are responsible through their own powers for the well-being of their vassals. Randians are afraid of "looters" because they deserve to be looted.

[rocker935]

Who the fuck wants to live in a society where everyone only cares about themselves?