The Influence of Ayn Rand on American Society...

Post Reply New Topic

I could ask the same of you, and I think the image makes my point just fine, but since you insist.

Your comic doesn't "debunk" anything but a false version of what you're attacking, and if you think it does you've got bigger problems. Happy?

Rand is popular among the right of the Republican party these days, and they want to alter society to fit with her poorly written fiction. Fortunately, none of these modern day Randians have two brain cells to rub together. So the best they can do is rally like minded dolts to vote against their own economic interests.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Ummm... philosophy deals with values. That's why it matters.

Look who doesn't understand a joke.

And you're incapable of evaluating the value system of a philosophy independent of it's creator? Or in other words, if Hitler (since we're being histrionic here, let's just go all out) had written Mein Progressivism rather than Mein Kampf, you'd renounce your views because a bad guy had thought them up regardless of if they were actually any good or not? That doesn't strike me as particularly rational.

Look, I get that you're mad about, well you're just mad generally, but really? Did you even look at post I was referring to?
A comic strip presented as an argument that "debunks" an entire philosophy isn't a "joke", especially when the author of said strip seems to have had Atlas Shrugged described to them, but never have actually read it. Just because it was presented in comic strip format doesn't make it a joke, there was no attempt at humor made. Fail.

Also, I notice that you're defending Thomas81 an awful lot lately; is that because you're ideological sympathy makes you want to carry water for him, or do you actually believe this crap? (see, THAT'S how you turn something around on someone)

If you only take parts of her writing, then I agree with you; however, a lot of the people who are adherents of Rand do adopt the whole cannon en masse (Rand herself was known to encourage this in her little cult of personality).
Guilt by association? She had no association with the serial killer she admired - what makes her repulsive is her own admiration of the man, and what makes that relevant is that said admiration was perfectly congruent with her valorization of selfishness.

If a socialist or communist starts (for example) going off on how wonderful Chairman Mao is, I find them childish and naive (at best)- not because they have any actual association with him, but because their admiration of him displays either a lack of morality, a willingness to valorize someone despite knowing nothing about him, or a deliberate self-blinding of history on the same level as a holocaust denier. And I am a socialist.

I'm quite aware of that, in fact it was the reason for her schism with the early Libertarian Party as she was very much all or nothing concerning Objectivsm. However, I thought we were discussing the philosophy itself, and not the people who might follow it. I would also argue that while actual Objectivists do swallow the philosophy hook line and sinker, that Rand's influence lies not so much with the diehard followers, but with the people who read the book and took a bit here and a bit there.





The article you posted clearly tried to link anyone who followed her philosophy to her and her serial killer admiration in a most sensationalist way, again it's right there in the comments to the article. I think you're failing to people from their work, I mean it's completely possible to admire Mao as a revolutionary or guerrilla strategist without getting into the morality of the cause he fought for, or to admire Rand for her ideas and impact without delving into her personal state of mind. Here's the gist; I don't care if Ayn Rand found inspiration in a deranged murderer to create a literary work and philosophy, I'm only interested in the objective quality of those things (objective, not Objective, thank you very much).

As an aside, Rand is always a conundrum for me to discuss, since as a heterodox libertarian I do have some overlap with her and as a fair minded person I feel compelled to attack unfair criticism, but I also feel the need to make clear that I don't count myself a follower of hers and have significant areas of disagreement with her and her philosophy. As I've pointed out before, half the forum seems to think that all libertarians sleep with their signed copies of Atlas Shrugged under their pillows, so I always have mixed feelings defending her, but honesty demands that I do it regardless.

Ayn Rand wrote some enduring novels that some people enjoy and some people don't. Her belief system inspired some but how many people actually faithfully adhere to it? Not many since Mrs. Rand was very intolerant of any one that didn't follow the same beliefs as her for the exact same reasons. She probably hated people that shared many of the same beliefs of her but didn't adhere to Objectionism more than any, she regarded Libertarians as butchers and plagiarists for example. She exposed people to new ideas but the core of these beliefs weren't original to her or really anyone else for that matter.

Would you consider Ron Paul a diehard Randian? What about Alan Greenspan? I'm not being rhetorical - I'm really asking the question.


Hmmm, I don't usually read comments bc there tends to be a lot of misinterpretation, trolling, etc and not a lot of serious discussion. I'll take your word for it.


The people who quote him admiringly generally are all about the 'morality of what he fought for,' and tend to either minimize or excuse his inept/manipulative/incredibly destructive leadership during the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. The man caused human suffering rivaling Hitler; for some reason, the later is more recognized for it than the former.


Ok, here's my point then, without reference to the author herself:
Objectivism, or extreme libertarianism, or whatever you want to call it, extolls a level of selfishness and dissociation from the commonwealth consistent with sociopathy or, to use less loaded words, with asocial animals like solitary big cats. If adopted universally, this philosophy would inevitably lead to a disintigration of the social order into might-makes-right anarchy (though in this case 'might' may be wealth or physical might); given the valorization of wealth in this philosophy, that might not even be seen as a negative outcome.


Dox, I wish that more right-wing politicians were as understanding of nuance as you are. If the Republican party were remade in your image, I still wouldn't vote for them but it would be good for the country as a whole.

Ron was inspired by Ayn Rand yes(as many are)but an adherent of her entire belief system he obviously is not. I don't think anybody would say Murray Rothbard, who Paul was close to, was a diehard 'Randian' despite the overlaps in some of there beliefs.

What about Greenspan?

Paul Ryan, although he later disavowed her because of her atheism, is reputed to have made all of his staffers read Atlas Shrugged.

Greenspan was a traitor to his own beliefs let alone Ayn Rand. Greenspan before he was Fed chairman and during are pretty much completely different people.

Paul Ryan certainly not.

There are many fans of Ayn Rand's novels who draw inspiration from them but the number of actual faithful Objectionists is fairly miniscule.

Ryan disavowed Rand so he'd be more palatable to the general public when he got the Vice Presidential nod. Enough people know Rand's philosophy revolved around being heartless when confronted with the plight of those who have less than you, and so Ryan realized he needed a public makeover.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Ayn Randism promotes the "contradictions of capitalism"... enemies of capitalism who wish it to collapse should understand that her influence promotes anti-capitalism.

...

Last edited by marshall on 05 Dec 2012, 12:23 am, edited 1 time in total.