Objectivism and Ayn Rand

[Communist Mutant From Outer Space]

For a brief while, only a month or so, I was seriously interested in Ayn Rand's Objectivism. Of course, I look back and ridicule it for the most part, but I really thought it was what could really turn me left to right at the time. I saw it as... if each person is excessively concerned for themselves, perhaps being a collective would be unnecessary in a sense. Again, I scorn this now, but see it as part of my early political development from the past.

I'd be interested to know what others thought of it, seeing as we're all leftists here and thus should be staunchly opposed to Rand. Often, people just tend to dismiss it as ludicrous instead of breaking it down point by point or actually giving an in-depth retrospective look at it, which is what I intended with this thread.

(If this belongs someone else, please feel free to move it if necessary)

[Zoop]

Rand's philosophy is that of the kindergarten bully. The difference between Rand and the bully, is that the bully often tends to grow up.

Honestly, I'm not really interested in it. It's a laissez-faire ideology which can be basically condensed into "I don't give a fuck about anyone else."

I think we should return the favour, and not give a fuck about Rand.

[Aslan]

Oh rand, she's the posterchild of the neo-conservative and ''libertarian'' movement. I've concluded a long time ago that her ideology is loved so much because of the will of the bourgeoisie to isolate people in their 'individual'. That kind of self-centeredness is the perfect condition for the parasite known as consumerism and capitalism to thrive. Self-centerness goes to greed and greed goes to self-centeredness. Little does the Libertarian know is that that is what the Upper class wants them to do.

[Lobotomy]

Not only is her philosophy ludicrous, but her writing style is just lame too. I got about halfway through atlas shrugged. From what I recall, it was just boring because there was no subtlety. For example, I think the protagonist (who is a rich bourgeois) had a brother who was a socialist, but this brother was constantly being hypocritical and asking the protagonist for money. Books that are so blatant are uninteresting to me

[ComradeAllende]

For the most part, Objectivism argues for the use of reason over emotion or superstition (very Enlightenment-esque) and states that altruism is destructive because it sacrifices the needs of the individual over the needs of the "collective." In other words, it allows some to "feast" upon the fruits of other people's labor. This is very Lockean in the sense that it opposes the use of force unless in response to aggression and believes that property belongs to the person who created it (i.e mixed their labor with nature).

A classic Marxist (or other radical leftist) retort to this is that the capitalist does not "own" the fruits of his labor because he is a capitalist. He employs other men (the workers) to create the fruits and then takes them and gives the laborers only a portion, then keeps the rest for himself (surplus value realized as profit). The laborers are the "rightful" owners of the profits, yet they only get wages because of their unequal bargaining position viz-a-viz the capitalist. The Randian Objectivist may ramble on about the "sanctity of contracts" and the "freedom" of the worker to find a more hospitable employer, but the Marxist will respond by pointing out that this method is almost universal in capitalist countries; if he's clever, he'll respond by saying that there is no free choice on the part of employees because any employer who would share profits with them would be bankrupt by his competitors.

There's a bunch of other stuff on ethics, the Non-Aggression Principle, the "morality of capitalism" and the "evil of collectivism", etc. I'd recommend reading some of her shorter books like Anthem, but then I again I couldn't even get past 100 pages of Atlas Shrugged so it doesn't matter. Ayn Rand is generally considered to be a "gateway" to plain-vanilla libertarianism; I doubt most libertarians follow her like the Objectivists do (although they all respect her to some extent).

[WideAwake]

You are right about Ayn Rand, how can anybody with a little bit of heart, soul and common sense, read the mysanthropist evil ideology of Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand's ideology turns people into unfriendly people, like the right-wing individualist yuppies you see at the right-wing food courts of shopping malls, where the Republican Party middle class white youth of USA hangs around. The people who follow the ideology and philosophy of life of Ayn Rand (usually white european american middle class people) are very psychorigid and even neurotic






Rand's philosophy is that of the kindergarten bully. The difference between Rand and the bully, is that the bully often tends to grow up.

Honestly, I'm not really interested in it. It's a laissez-faire ideology which can be basically condensed into "I don't give a fuck about anyone else."

I think we should return the favour, and not give a fuck about Rand.

[WideAwake]

However, egocentrism which is linked with Ayn Rand's theory of the ego could be used from a left-wing marxist perspective. Because poor people who are more egocentric about their own economic interests, than poor people who are not egocentric (and who do not think about their own low income poor life without pleasures and without luxuries might be driven to support marxism and left-wing labor parties a lot more than the poor people who do not care about their own economic standards





For a brief while, only a month or so, I was seriously interested in Ayn Rand's Objectivism. Of course, I look back and ridicule it for the most part, but I really thought it was what could really turn me left to right at the time. I saw it as... if each person is excessively concerned for themselves, perhaps being a collective would be unnecessary in a sense. Again, I scorn this now, but see it as part of my early political development from the past.

I'd be interested to know what others thought of it, seeing as we're all leftists here and thus should be staunchly opposed to Rand. Often, people just tend to dismiss it as ludicrous instead of breaking it down point by point or actually giving an in-depth retrospective look at it, which is what I intended with this thread.

(If this belongs someone else, please feel free to move it if necessary)

[Communist Mutant From Outer Space]

Not only is her philosophy ludicrous, but her writing style is just lame too. I got about halfway through atlas shrugged. From what I recall, it was just boring because there was no subtlety. For example, I think the protagonist (who is a rich bourgeois) had a brother who was a socialist, but this brother was constantly being hypocritical and asking the protagonist for money. Books that are so blatant are uninteresting to me

I have to agree here. I'm currently reading "The Fountainhead" and there's a professor in it who, despite clearly being older and no doubt wiser than the protagonist, is blatantly naive in that he believes that everything beautiful or expressive in architecture has already been built, and so trying to make anything new or modern would be hopeless. It almost seems like a caricature; someone distinctly surreal. A character like that has no depth, they are merely a 2D blueprint. Joseph Stalin's "Bordiga" is more well written than "The Fountainhead", from what I've currently read.

In the end I've come to realise her philosophy is nothing more than high-sounding romanticism (typical Rand). There's very little to it, and perhaps that's why "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" are seen as being the Libertarian bible; it's such a crude and unfounded theory that it can be summed up in one book. Socialism nor Communism have an equivalent, though Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" could be considered close.

Has anyone else found Objectivism close to Satanism in its tenets? Satanism's official site claims they don't have a political leaning and in fact have members from across the political spectrum, but it just almost feels like, as one person said somewhere, "Ayn Rand with a goat mask".

[WideAwake]

You know I love psychology and studying the behaviour of people and societies. And I think that one of the reasons of why many middle class people and even lower-class people in USA, and other nations support the ideoloigies of free market libertarianism and reformist social-democracy (Berny Sanders, Green Party etc) is really lack of warrior attitudes, lack of will to fight.

If you think about it supporting The Green Party, Bernie Sanders and libertarian Ayn Rand politicians (Like Rand Paul, Bob Bar etc) requires no fighting at all, no resistance at all. Because those politicians are perfectly compatible with the US constitution, and the USA political-economic social order. And doesn't require any anger, any rage, any dangerous situations.

While supporting radical leftist ideologies (anarchism or marxism) requires a powerful self-esteem, a will to fight (against the majority of americans who are hardcore anti-marxism), and to be literally a soldier, a warrior all the time, because radical leftists in USA are hated with a passion.

And I think that's one of the main reasons of why people choose social-democracy, and libertarianism as a solution to their economic problems, than marxism (that would require a war inside USA of marxists against the armed forces of the US government) because of the fact that there is literally no way to overthrow any capitalist government with elections. But only with a real war




I have to agree here. I'm currently reading "The Fountainhead" and there's a professor in it who, despite clearly being older and no doubt wiser than the protagonist, is blatantly naive in that he believes that everything beautiful or expressive in architecture has already been built, and so trying to make anything new or modern would be hopeless. It almost seems like a caricature; someone distinctly surreal. A character like that has no depth, they are merely a 2D blueprint. Joseph Stalin's "Bordiga" is more well written than "The Fountainhead", from what I've currently read.

In the end I've come to realise her philosophy is nothing more than high-sounding romanticism (typical Rand). There's very little to it, and perhaps that's why "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" are seen as being the Libertarian bible; it's such a crude and unfounded theory that it can be summed up in one book. Socialism nor Communism have an equivalent, though Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" could be considered close.

Has anyone else found Objectivism close to Satanism in its tenets? Satanism's official site claims they don't have a political leaning and in fact have members from across the political spectrum, but it just almost feels like, as one person said somewhere, "Ayn Rand with a goat mask".

[Lobotomy]

Has anyone else found Objectivism close to Satanism in its tenets? Satanism's official site claims they don't have a political leaning and in fact have members from across the political spectrum, but it just almost feels like, as one person said somewhere, "Ayn Rand with a goat mask".

Anton Lavey was actually very much influenced by rand IIRC

[Aslan]

I can't take Anton LeVey seriously.. They seriously think the best way to win people is by scaring them!