Formal criticisms of Ayn Rand/Objectivism?

[Questionable]

I'm interested in knowing if there were any Marxist, anarchist, or other leftist responses to Ayn Rand and Objectivism back during the height of its popularity in the 60s, when there were Objectivist schools open and the like.

[conmharáin]

Criticizing Ayn Rand's work implies actually reading any of it through to the end. I'd be interested in any Marxist critiques that already exist, because I do NOT want to have to do that.

[Questionable]

Criticizing Ayn Rand's work implies actually reading any of it through to the end. I'd be interested in any Marxist critiques that already exist, because I do NOT want to have to do that.

I understand it's fun to tease our ideological opponents, but I sincerely hope this kind of anti-learning attitude is more of a jest and not serious. I'm not suggesting we all need to read Atlas Shrugged before we're qualified to criticize Objectivism, but we should at least have a solid understanding of the social system that Ayn Rand was proposing.

[conmharáin]

I've read Shrugged and Anthem. I would like to never have to do that again.

[Althusser]

PdcoDRpizv0

[Questionable]

PdcoDRpizv0

As interesting as this is to hear a view of Objectivism through their own eyes, it's still not really what I'm looking for. I'm wondering if there were any polemics, published critiques, etc against Objectivism during its height of popularity in the 1960s.

Although some of those youtube comments were quite amusing:


Consider though, in a time when we are arguably undergoing our own communist revolution... mightn't it be wise to become alittle black & white in defense of our unique way of life?

Shit, I had no clue we were experiencing a communist revolution already. Let's hit the barricades!

[l'Enfermé]

I've read Shrugged and Anthem. I would like to never have to do that again.
It's best to call Atlas Shrugged and The Fountanhead one book, Fountain Shrugged or Fountainhead Shrugged maybe, since they basically are one book written twice to double Rand's profits.

[Foxtrotsky]

The question in the OP is a good one. I have an Objectivist friend, and we're always arguing over Individualism vs. Communitarianism. I'd like to see some formal critiques of Rand's work to help my case.

[Questionable]

It's best to call Atlas Shrugged and The Fountanhead one book, Fountain Shrugged or Fountainhead Shrugged maybe, since they basically are one book written twice to double Rand's profits.

Did Atlas Shrugged have a rape scene like Fountainhead?

I remember reading that in high school when I was going through my "I'm so much better than my class mates" phase and being...confused, to say the least.

[Comrade #138672]

No Marxist criticism of Ayn Rand, but still an interesting interview with Ayn Rand herself:

1ooKsv_SX4Y

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't know of any good critiques off the top of my head. Are there specific aspects of the view that you are looking for replies to?

In general I'd say that Objectivism is neither fully and ideology or a philosopy, though it has features of both. Ideologically (that is a worldview based in a class expereince) Objectivism is just libertarianism mixed with John-Birch Society style anticommunism IMO. It appeals to the class of professionals and small owners (petite bourgoise) by portraying a world of induviduals all competitng equally on the market (potentially). It's not a philosophy in my view because it doesn't try to explain the world, it tries to apologize for the visible problems and contadictions of the capitlist system as a whole. So philosophically, it's just a different bourgoise moral framework - one that inverts what liberal bourgoise philosophies see as "problems" and makes them "virtues".

It's a specifically rabbid anticommunist form of these sorts of more general ideas and developed as a responce to worker's movements and Bolshevism. Because of this it's politics are so clearly just an an apology for capitalist problems and attempt to flip Marxist criticisms of capitalism on their head to argue the exact opposite that even libertarian critics call Objectivism "inverted Marxism".

The ideas gained popularity originally when the right was sort of in a crisis of identity and more blatant anticommunism was discredited. It became more "mainstream" because it's arguments against a straw-man communism came in handy in arguing against Keynsianism and for neoliberal policies. It could "morally" justify privitization, decreases in working class living standards and protections, for the capitalist elietes while using the libertarian small capitalist appeal to create more of a base of popular support for these neoliberal dogmas among sections of professionals and academics.

Although I detest libertarianism, I can at least understand why it has some class appeal to people in that position in society - Objectivism is just so obviously dogma and an attempt to reconcile reality to a grafted-on philophical framework that I have no idea how anyone can seriously consider this outlook without just simply being awful misanthropic (and mysoginistic) humans.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Fun Fact: although Rand dennounced Social Security and Medicare, she recieved both. There's reality and then there's Objectivism.

Although this Mark Twain story is not a critique of Objectivism (it was written long before) it does destroy some of Objectivim's assumptions: for Twain, A =/= A.

http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/70/pg70.html

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

I have my own criticisms of Rand/Objectivism, but it more to with her epistemology and metaphysics, and her mega misreading of Kant.

Though plenty of rightists have critiscised her ethics, take a look at Nozick.

[Comrade #138672]

One could argue that Objectivism is actually nothing more than Subjectivism. Even though its name suggests that it is an objective philosophy, its fundamental assumptions, like morals and values, are inherently subjective.

In this way Objectivism is not much different from postmodernism, which is heavily criticized by Objectivists. Ironic, isn't it?

This is not to say that the philosophy isn't grounded in bourgeois class interests that are objective.

[Deity]

Ive heard Anthem used as an excuse of why communism is evil far too many times. It just further distorts the truth about communism and helps further the demonized belief people have about it.

[Questionable]

Guys this is great and all, but you're totalyl missing my point. I wanted to know if there were any formal criticisms of Objectivism.

There are hundreds upon hundreds of blog sites and forum posts talking about why Ayn Rand is bad. This isn't meant to be a Rand-bashing thread, those are tiresome. I wanted to know if any official communist or just plain leftist organizations have published any critiques/rebuttals of Objectivism, not why it makes you angry.

Jimmie Higgins at least made a very interesting post, but I'm tired of people complaining about Ayn Rand with no substance. I know you hate her. That's not what I'm asking.

[conmharáin]

I'm not aware of any unified Marxist critique of Objectivism as a combination of certain epistemological, metaphysical, ethical, and aesthetic positions.

[JPSartre12]

Objectivists that I know spend a significant amount of time proselytizing about the "liberty" inherent in a competitive market. Once you spend two minutes explaining how competition trends towards monopolization, they're flabbergasted and speechless. Without their basic economic footing, the rest of their argument sort of collapses in upon itself.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Nah, don't worry, you don't need to read Atlas Shrugged. It's fiction. Bad fiction.
If you really wanna have a laugh reading that stuff, try "For the New Intellectual". It pretty much covers all the "philosophy" of her various bricks/doorstoppers in a handy small book. So you get everything you'd need to actually criticize it in depth without going through 900 pages of pointless fiction.
There's a chapter or something devoted to explaining John Galt's speech, for instance.

EDIT: Anyway, yeah, I'm not sure about any major Marxist criticism of Ayn Rand. Well, my own criticism would be, damn you Lenin! How could you let that filth escape? How?!

Seriously, her "arguments" are seriously leaps of logic which she claims to somehow be inspired by Aristotle, though if you read his Politics its pretty clear he wouldn't approve of her.

If anyone undertakes a thorough critique, probably the best starting point is her argument that:

1. Reason is good.
2. Force is bad.
3. Capitalism follows from reason.
4. Anti-capitalism follows from force.

It's pretty obvious how no "rational self-interested" worker fully aware of reality would consent to working under capitalist conditions precisely because of the force/coercion inherent in that system, let alone one who rejects her sociopathic individualism.

She has decent positions on some social issues, maybe (i.e., abortion) but they unfortunately flow from a wrong-headed "philosophy".
Yeah...I've met two or three objectivists at university, and hear a lot of this stuff.

EDIT 2:

Yeah, someone shared this on here a while back. Not explicitly Marxist but the best critique I've come across.
http://www.thenation.com/article/garbage-and-gravitas#

[Strannik]

Basic "formal" problem with Objectivism, I think, is that truth value of any objective statement that refers to dynamic reality is necessarily temporary. Objectivists, however, make statements as if external reality wasn't dynamic and as if logical consistency itself was a criterion of truth.

As far as I know, no major marxist thinker has written a formal criticism of objectivism. From marxist point of view this would be simply a waste of time. As was said before, objectivism represents ideal world of petty-bourgeoise: small enterpreneurs and handicraftes. It tries to represent these people as a separate "revolutionary" force. But this subclass is at best artificially created by bourgeois state to contain proletariat and normally liquidated by logic of bourgeois economy itself (a process we are going through right now).

Imagine a sinking ship where one man refuses to put a life vest on because he can theoretically prove that ships are able to float. Would you take time to write a formal criticism of his views?

[Skyhilist]

Here's a site with some pretty good critiques of objectivism, although probably none of them are marxist: http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/critics/personal.html

I also found a similar thread on here from a few years back that might be helpful: http://www.revleft.com/vb/criticisms-ayn-randi-t115536/index.html