quote:

---

...One final measure of expanding scholarship on Rand is the commencement, in the Fall of 1999, of The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, co-founded by R. W. Bradford, literature professor Stephen Cox, and me. The journal is a nonpartisan semi-annual interdisciplinary double-blind peer-reviewed scholarly periodical dedicated to an examination of Rand’s work and legacy. In its contents, one will find essays by Objectivist philosophers and those sympathetic to Rand, as well as critics of Objectivism ...

---

She: If my mother knew about that, she'd be spinning in her grave.

He: Not with that stake in her heart, she wouldn't!

It's so nice to know we have Rand on our side
We'll always have good old Rand around
A zillion may be fried out, but in some neato hideout
Rand will be safe underground, praise the Lord
Rand will be safe underground

With a stroke of the pen they can change us from men
Into numbers that flash on the wall
Those brainy heroes transform us to zeroes
So who gives a damn if we fall after all
So who gives a damn if we fall

Their superior genes will be safe behind screens
With the rest of our line doomed to die
We'll all be sorted out, beyond a shadow of a doubt
By the all-wise electronic eye, bow down
To the almighty electronic eye

I thoroughly enjoyed reading a book written by a woman who had a vision and felt compelled to share it.

It's very rare that I find a book written by a female that doesn't revolve around family, victimology or bodice ripping romances on far away islands. Dagny Taggart is the best female protagonist I've ever followed..... okay, maybe tied with Anne Shirley.

Sure, I can see where some of her ideas wouldn't work, we do need some things to be universal and shared, such as health insurance, to a degree.

And, government regulation is needed for things like environmental protection, - though one could say that it falls under the allowable state intervention to keep the public safe, like gun laws and food standards which Rand talks about in Atlas Shrugged.

However, I see nothing wrong at all with being responsible for one's self, taking care of one's self, owning one's own property, taking pride in one's abilities, working hard, earning one's own money, learning a skill, having control over one's own inventions and intellectual property, being efficient, being dedicated, being an entrepreneur and being rational.

Could you explain further? Why do you not like her writing/philosophy.

Rand,

I agree, there are some things of course that I don't agree with, but, I run into that everywhere. I really enjoyed Atlas Shrugged, and will read the Fountainhead as soon as I'm finished with Catch 22.

Aside from being poorly written and wretchedly preachy (the Bible doesn't sling crap like that) it was BORING. Her ideas I just can't agree with.

I've made it a personal campaign to deny people the horrors of this book. No one deserves that much suffering. I actually keep a big bag full of good books to persuade friends from taking it out of my school library.

My reactions are not automatic - i
I didn't suddenly become a socialist by falling off a donkey on the way to Damascus.

At 18, i found some of Ayn Rand's ideas appealing, too. Who wouldn't? She tells you that you're special and everybody else is mediocre.
But, even back then, a few things hit me in the face like lemon pies. She admired slag-heaps, ferchrissakes! Had no use for nature at all. She admired inherited wealth, however gotten. She couldn't seem to understand that people never start out on a level playing field and that established power always makes the rules in its own favour. Was against force, but didn't deal with fraud.
That's just for starters.
(I'm not touching the sexual hangups.)

It gives a bunch of good reasons why Ayn Rand and co. are, essentially, BS.

Here's a nice quote:

"In short, Objectivism is a sort of cliff note intellectualism for people too busy, lazy, or stupid to actually be intellectuals. The contradiction of a supremacy theory predicated upon the 'superiority of smart people' that itself is characterized by and logical inconsistencies, emotional reductionism, poor scholarship and, as a last resort, suppression of dissent has, of course, delighted liberals and other left-wingers for decades. For 'management' class (or wannabe management-class) kids who subscribe to Objectivism (the 'challenge to 2,000-and-a-half years of cultural tradition'), it provides a simplistic, narcissistic justification to expropriate as much surplus value from workers as biologically possible and politically feasible."

And the author doesn't even mention the cultish behaviour of her followers...

Let's put discussions of her "philosophy" (I'm being charitable here) to rest, shall we? Big waste of time.

[ 04 February 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

quote:

---

Let's put discussions of her "philosophy" (I'm being charitable here) to rest, shall we? Big waste of time.

---

[ 05 February 2005: Message edited by: bittersweet ]

I'd really like to discuss this further with whoever is interested and has read Atlas Shrugged.

Again, I too don't get some of her thinking. I'm no fan of slagheaps or the weird sex scenes. I'm an environmentalist and I think the market is a powerful tool to be used to help the planet, so, I could be a little different there.

"See how Dagne would fare as the homely child of a poor Black family in the same America."

See, at first glance I can agree with you that it seems elitist and that your proposed "Dagne" wouldn't have made it. But in the world of the book, she would have.

Notice the characters that she favours, they are actually a diverse group.

One of the most admirable men in the book is the tramp who is hitching a ride in her vestibule, he was a lathe operator.

She placed a mother "just" raising her children in Galt's Gultch, she had no formal education and was not from a wealthy family.

John Galt himself is not a wealthy man at all and was from a very humble background, his asset is his mind.

Cheryl, the dime store worker, is a very admirable character. She was dirt poor and uneducated.

And, I disagree that she praises inherited wealth.

She admires people who work hard to maintain good family businesses, such as Dagne running Taggart Transcontinental. But, she despises those who simply loaf off of their ancestors efforts.

James Taggart is perhaps the most vile character in the entire novel.

Why did Rearden *think* he hated Francisco so much? Because he thought he was a useless playboy who was doing nothing to maintain his family's earned wealth. Hank himself started with nothing in his pockets.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonesuch:
On intellectual grounds, i'm inclined to agree. But we're not all the same age, nor possessed of the same breadth and quantity of experience. There is a generation just being exposed to Rand for the first time (there is quite a strong resurgence of those ideas) and they deserve some explanations, rather than blanket rejection.

---

Exactly. I actually quite enjoyed Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead when I first read them in my early 20's. I read Atlas Shrugged again a couple of years ago and wondered what the hell was wrong with me when I read it the first time. In the intervening time, I had done a lot more critical thinking about the assumptions of our society when it comes to wealth, privilege, etc. Hell, I actually used to enjoy reading Barbara Amiel as well back then, even though I didn't agree with much of what she wrote.

We don't all start off in the same place. It's a good counter to Randian "philosophy", but it's also a good counter to those who would dismiss people who liked the book out of hand.

[ 05 April 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]

But, I don't think that Rand's ideas and ideals assume that we do, as I listed above.

However, under our system, it is possible to be "successful" no matter where one starts. It's not a sure thing, but, it is possible.

I don't think a person from a poor background needs to become Prime Minister or a brain surgeon in order to be "successful". In my experience hard work does pay off.

Again, the ideas are actually very simple, this is not deep stuff. But, I don't think anyone said the ideas are deep.

[ 05 April 2005: Message edited by: Trinitty ]

[ 05 April 2005: Message edited by: DrConway ]

What didn't you like about it Doc?

I find the descriptions of the DISLIKE very colourful, but, I want to talk about WHY you did or did not like any book by Ayn Rand.

It's kind of the same with Atlas Shrugged - nobody can make me read it again. Consequently, i don't recall many details or characters.
So, i can't address specific issues; can only tell you about the impressions left on me by the body of work in general. I suggest you read The Fountainhead for more clarification of what's wrong with the philosophy (it's a better novel, as well).

My ancestors came to this country with nothing but a few bundles, a very common background for Canadians and Americans. They worked hard and gave more to their children than they had when they started.

I myself am fortunate enough to have loving parents who were/are dedicated to eachother and to us.

We weren't wealthy by any means though.

My mother worked part-time as a nurse and my father was out of work for many years, with four children.

He didn't graduate highschool and ran away from an abusive father at the age of 16. He worked his tail off and made it. He eventually got his diploma too.

I'm doing well now because my parents worked hard and learned things, and I think our system is unique in that way because it encourages and enables class mobility. It's not instant or easy, but, it is done, and I would say that it's done MUCH more often than 1 in 4000 times. Most people I know have twice as much as their parents did at their ages.

My mother left her difficult home life and went to nursing school, "making something of herself". I really admire her for that.

My husband is the first person in his family to graduate highschool for as far as we can see through previous generations. His parents both dropped out and went to trade school, worked very very hard and raised their kids. They were from broken and in one case a very abusive home.

I always see merit being rewarded and don't accept that it's only one in four thousand people who do well for themselves.

Of course there are those rare otherwise healthy people that just seem to have everything going against them, one of the most educational things I've ever done was a story I did at a women's shelter... one of those women couldn't even read. I think we should do all we can to help those people do what they need to do to learn skills, earn money and take care of themselves.

Thanks for replying nonesuch, I don't know many people who have read anything by Rand, so, it's nice to be able to talk about it.

Edited to add:

quote:

---

She never accounts for history - like how family fortunes came about: dispossessed Indians, slaves, indentured servants, barely-paid and soon-discarded Chinese labourers

---

I totally agree, that's one of the biggest failures that I found. I actually didn't notice the glaring omission in Atlas Shrugged so much as I'm noticing it in her collection of essays that I'm reading right now, "Philosophy, who needs it?" She said something to the effect that the United States is the only country that built it's wealth by free men working honestly.... I guess she missed the chapter of American history that included slavery? Granted, it was still the Americans themselves who abolished it in their own country, but, she should not forget that it WAS a reality.

[ 06 April 2005: Message edited by: Trinitty ]

quote:

---

They worked hard and gave more to their children than they had when they started.

---

Luck.

quote:

---

I myself am fortunate enough to have loving parents who were/are dedicated to eachother and to us.

---

It's not that they worked at it or made any sacrifices. It was just luck.

quote:

---

He worked his tail off and made it.

---

Lucky fellow.

quote:

---

He eventually got his diploma too.

---

Luck. Pure shit luck.

quote:

---

My mother left her difficult home life and went to nursing school, "making something of herself".

---

Luck smiled upon her.

quote:

---

His parents both dropped out and went to trade school, worked very very hard and raised their kids.

---

Don't you mean "got really lucky and raised their kids"?

It still amazes me the number of people who work more than one job, save for a rainy day, do without consumer crap they don't need, never buy things on credit, read a book instead of watching the idiot box, and complete high school, thinking that all of that is going to somehow translate into success. And then when it does (through sheer luck of course!) they have the nerve to feel self-satisfied, as though they had a hand in their own success. It's like some kind of gambler's fallacy in action.

quote:

---

We weren't wealthy by any means though.

---

I of course don't call any of that luck. I do accept that there seems to be those very few people for whom nothing goes right and they fall into drug addiction, prostitution etc, but, again, they are the very few and aren't beyond hope and help.

Actually blackdog, we are a success by those standards because my parents now own their large beautiful home free and clear in their favourite corner of the world, I have a job that I love and that I'm good at, my three sisters are in law school and med school and the other has her chemistry degree and is deciding what to do next.

quote:

---

I do accept that there seems to be those very few people for whom nothing goes right and they fall into drug addiction, prostitution etc

---

Sure, and I'd add to that social factors such as being born brown, having a speech impediment, having violent parents, etc.

I'd also concede that it's possible for luck to run the other way too. If you're born the tall, blonde, beautiful child of millionaires, you'll likely end up a success.

That she failed doesn't prevent those who have the most to gain from her 'philosophy' using her arguments.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Contrarian:
That said, it's a blog run by libertarian historians, so maybe less apt to be critical of her? I dunno that much about libertarians.

---

Libertarian's, the right wing ones anyway, don't believe in paying taxes in support of civilised society. But they still desire to live among us and enjoy all the first world societal perks like: paved roads, highways, clean water, air traffic controll, agricultural and scientific research to prop-up private enterprise, public education system(to prop-up private enterprise), sewers, health care, electricity, legal system, military protection etc.

First, i wasn't talking about Canada, where a number of government iniatives and social programs - of which Rand heartily and voiceforously disapproved - make it easier to survive poverty and to escape from it. That changes the numbers.

Second, i was talking about wealth - not small, incremental improvements over generations. The latter happens all the time. It happens in the US, and has been done by a few of the people whose skin-colour barred them from education, skilled labour and promotion. (This was very much in effect at the time Rand wrote her books. She chose not to notice.)

Even within those parameters, not having chronic kidney disease, not falling off the water-tower, and not living down-stream of a toxic industry are little bits of (uncredited) luck.

Third, when praising wealth, whether inherited or 'created', she, like most capitalists, fail to delve very deeply into the mechanics of profit. It's got to come from somewhere. If you didn't have it before and have it now, somebody else must have had it before, who doesn't have it now. When one man becomes rich, one or more other men must become poorer.

[ 07 April 2005: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oliver Cromwell:
No, no, and again no. Wealth is created by saving instead of consuming.

---

Creating wealth can *include* saving, but one must *aquire* something to save ... so it's just as correct to say wealth is created by aquiring ... thus the commonly used phrase "aquiring wealth" rather than "saving wealth".

Just as important as aquiring, is the concept of profit ... if you aquire without making profit, then once again you are not creating wealth.

So as I said, there must be more to it than that.

quote:

---

not falling off the water-tower

---

Not to quibble, but that's got nothing to do with "luck" and everything to do with not being stoopid enough to climb the water tower. If you climb the water tower and fall it's known as "natural selection".

quote:

---

Assuming of course you don't work for the municipal water treatment centre.

---

As for saving, that has never made profit for anyone. At most, you get a bit of interest from a bank that invests your little money in somebody who turns it into big money... by getting lots of little rent moneys from people like you. Whether he gives you reasonable living accomodation in return is another question worth investigating. How and where he 'acquired' the material and energy to build the apartments is another.

quote:

---

Why would you assume that?

---

Well, I was suggesting that someone falling off a water tower wasn't bad luck, it was stupidity, since there's no reason for someone to be up there.

Then, in the interest of thoroughness, I made an exception for water treatment employees, who obviously would have a reason.

quote:

---

Well, I was suggesting that someone falling off a water tower wasn't bad luck, it was stupidity, since there's no reason for someone to be up there.

---

quote:

---

The other virtues she valued highly: courage, pride, independence, perseverence - these are all competive traits.

---

Well, Rand may have felt courage was as an admirable trait, but it isn't in terms of capital.

I guess she never heard the line.

"compassion, co-operation, understanding, patience...
Do you need a gender-diagram? "

What exactly do you mean by gender diagram?

Rand was compassionate towards people who wanted to try, at least in her writing in Atlas Shrugged.

Again, Dagne hired the tramp who was stealing a ride on the Taggart train because she respected his purpose. She also felt deep sympathy for Cheryl, the sister in law who had married Jim Taggart.

Taggart had to co-operate with other industrialists and employees of her own company in order to get anything done and had plenty of patience.

The point about luck and the difference between Canada and the United States is food for thought. I have not lived in the United States, so, I can't really comment on the living conditions there, especially for those who are starting from scratch. Intelligence and effort are rewarded there aren't they?

quote:

---

Intelligence and effort are rewarded there aren't they?

---

That, only if it isn't cheaper to farm out the same work to India or Roumania. As the job-market diminishes, fewer and fewer of the intelligent, hard-working people get even a shot at the reward.

It's competitiveness that's being rewarded. The system is built on winners and losers - few winners, many losers. And, of course, even the winners will never become rich, unless they add at least one more factor: luck or ruthlessness or a source of investment capital or political connections.
For an illustration, check out the people GWB has been rewarding lately.

A good society allows all eligible competitors up to the same starting-line. Rand never even asked the basic questions.

quote:

---

What exactly do you mean by gender diagram?

---

Afterthought:
Atlas Shrugged is a novel. It's fiction. People in a novel can be or do or feel whatever the author says. The reader may or may not find them convincing. It was written (? in the fifties, i think) at a time of American muscle-flexing: economic and industrial growth, infinite possibility - and deep paranoia. It reflects the emotional state of its time, as well as its author. It's not a terrible novel, nor a particularly good one.
The important thing is that it was meant to illustrate a social philosophy, which has enormous appeal - as long you don't look very closely at the undelying assumptions, antecedents, prerequisites, consequences and implications.
Once you step back and get some perspective, it has huge, gaping holes. It's not the single novel i've been addressing, but the philosophy.

[ 15 April 2005: Message edited by: nonesuch ]