People are not going to be inspired by wack-ass lyrics overlayed with politically charged Time magazine photos from the last decade.
Mmm. Not convinced. Often the music is better. And I’ve seen indie films (Primer, shot on $7,000!) better than most studio films, so it’s possible. I cut indie acts a lot of slack, and while this is passable, I don’t think it even approaches something good.
Do we all remember the Young Con Anthem?
I think the question of why left-wing political philosophy dominates the entertainment industry is an interesting one. I’m open to the argument that we’re all being partisan hacks here, but the quality of left-leaning partisan music, film, and television is generally superior to the quality of right-leaning partisan media.
Can I just say that I’ve always wondered why people took, or even take, ayn rand (‘rant’) so serious? The woman seems to me a nutter who clearly has some personal issues. She and her family fled for theRussian revolution. She deals with this by fantasizing about a simple place where there are no uncertainties of any kind and where, big surprise, A = A. Next, she applies her ideas on the world, everything in it and a lot of history, wether they fit or not (e.g. we already tried laissez-fair capitalism in the 19th century, and guess what? It did not work out too well). Call that a philosophy? I think it’s laughable. Sorry.
I agree with you. That’s why I was surprised that it didn’t suck. It’s very rare that you find any quality music that espouses right-wing themes. As I said, the only band that seems to have had real success at it is Rush.
I find this strange, especially today. Rock music and rap is supposed to challenge authority. I could understand left-wing protest songs when Republicans were in the White House, but now left-wing songs are really just shilling for the establishment.
That guy from Alice Cooper is a republican. But only in his private life.
Nonsense. Any left-wingers who attain positions of power have sold out, and invariably abandon the little people who got them to where they are today. The lefty artist can always rail against The Man, even if The Man is ostensibly a lefty as well…hell, especially if The Man is ostensibly a lefty, since in that case not only is he oppressing you, but he’s betrayed you as well.
Not seeing a whole lot of that so far…
Except that Obama isn’t left wing.
Well, like most Libertarian-leaning philosophies, she believes in a world where people and businesses are free to rise and fall on their own merit with a minimum of obfuscating bullshit. People are free to do as they please, but if they act stupidly or incompetantly, they will suffer the economic consequences.
Yeah what with that Industrial Revolution and all.
Yes, “and all” including things like the Great Depression, poisonous medicine, contaminated food, workers being crippled or killed in unsafe workplaces, and the beating and killing of workers who demanded better treatment.
Exactly. Similarly, Robin Hood wasn’t, as ayn claims, a communist parasite. Because the rich that he robbed were in fact French nobles who did not do any sort of work (except extracting the produce from the lower classes of the medieval society).
I don’t get it.
On one had you come in saying “this could start a revolution!”
And then a few minutes later you say “calm down guys, it’s just a YouTube video.”
Anyway, self-conscious manipulation in art is usually pretty easy to see through, and people are usually not easily fooled. If it doesn’t come from the heart, it’s just not going to resonate with people. And usually when you are trying to ‘educate’ people, it’s just not coming from the heart. The music has to evolve out of the feelings- it’s a product of how the artist feels, not a tool for how the artist feels.
I think you may be showing your age. Rock and rap are not “about rebellion.” There is no music anywhere that says “I really don’t care what you have to say, I’m rebelling against it.” It’s about the beliefs of the artists and their fans. Those beliefs don’t change no matter who the “authority” is.
You should be sorry because much of what you think about Rand is wrong. She was an exceedingly brilliant woman, the top student in the two universities she attended in Russia, and could hold such luminaries as Alan Greenspan spellbound for hours. Her family did flee Russia after her father’s pharmacy was seized by the Russians, but she returned four years later to finish her education. She was purged by the Russians shortly before completing her studies but was allowed to return and graduate after the Russians capitulated to pressure from other countries to allow “non-proletarian” students such as Rand to complete their studies and graduate. She told Tom Snyder on the Tomorrow show that she was the top student at both of the schools she attended.
She came to the U.S. alone and stayed with relatives in Chicago, vowing never to return to Russia. She then set out for Hollywood to become a screenwriter, which she eventually did.
Rand then wrote what turned out to be the biggest selling novel of all time, with Atlas Shrugged still selling around 500,000 copies a year worldwide twenty-seven years after her death and fifty-two years after it was first published.
We did not try laisssez-faire capitalism in the way she champions it, which is in concert with a constitutionally limited government.
Rand was not a conservative either. She was disdainful of conservatism as well as liberalism. Boiled down to its essense, Rand’s ultimate philosophy was that men should be guided by reason pretty much to the exclusion of all else, which pretty much brings us to my main objection with her philosophy, which is that like much of liberalism, it fails to properly take into account and allow for human nature. Human beings are simply not constructed so as to function like Spock-like automatons, basing every action and emotion and desire upon reason.
Still, whe was a brilliant, brilliant woman and a spell-binder in conversation. (This from no less an authority than William F. Buckley, Jr.) Do a Bing video search sometime and watch some of the interviews she did, notably on two occasions with Phil Donohue and also with Mike Wallace and Tom Snyder. (You might find it interesting to note also how respectful and almost deferential these guys were in her presence.)
I don’t know where you’re getting the idea she had “personal issues” or what you think those issues caused, but she was clearly a woman of considerable intelligence, substance and accomplishment. You would do well to inform yourself better about Rand and what she believed and espoused.
Ah, the Fugees and Wu tang, good choices; but you have not yet seen my ole school/east coast attack!
Slick Rick
Children’s Story
Hey Young World
Too bad. I read one of her books, it was an interesting read and made me think but led only to the conclusion that I don’t want to read any more ‘rant’.
First of all, let’s distinguish between literary and ideological and personal. Literary speaking I guess it’s up to everyone to decide; I can see pros and contras there. As for her personal life, I admit that I have not studied it. It’s just that her books seem to attack certain things in a rather one-dimensional way (e.g. anything that’s either religious or unpaid). That left me with the impression she had an axe to grind. I’m sure she was in her own way intelligent or convincing in debate, otherwise we would not be here.
But it’s mainly ideologically that I think what she stands for is reprehensible and lightweight at best. It’s not a philosophy, it is fiction. But it’s also a sort of propaganda, feeding people a false image of the world as if it works in ways it does not.
Also, for the laissez-faire. Has it never been tried? I think 19th century England and a few other places came close. It has historically been proven wrong (but if one starts with an opinion and then forces the evidence to fit like ayn did, you will not see this). Fictional characters like rearden or galt do not exist. You can find a Tomáš Baťa but I think it’s fairly safe to say he was an exception.
Of course there is the “that wasn’t really proper capitalism” defense. Similarly, there are also people who still believe in communism and who argue that it has never been really tried because they always got it wrong. You yourself said that humans are not automatons - well I think it’s rather naieve to assume that the free market system will take care of everything.
For example, no-one would ever spare the environment because that would cost money and people would not care enough to pay for it individually. The East India Company was both as productive as possible AND unfair to any competitors. The Soviet union lasted what, 70 years? It couldn’t have kept alive that long just as a predatory / parasitical state. Today, Zimbabwe is a state like that, but it doesn’t have anything to do with socialism.
It reminds me too much of this wacky theory: http://www.iamlost.com/features/smurfs/commies.shtml
And this Python video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju3h7yk4Hcg
So anybody who is opposed to religion or “unpaid” (whatever the hell that means) automatically “has an axe to grind”? This says much more about you than it says about her. If you need to criticize Rand (and yes, there’s much to criticize), as least confine your criticism to things she actually got wrong, not just because she was an atheist.
So to sum up, you seem to be saying that Ayn Rand was:
- Smart, and a good student
- A successful writer
- Espousing a philosophy which was interesting, but fatally flawed
If I have that right, it appears to dovetail with some of the criticism posted earlier. I think one can reasonably ask why her philosophy remains so prevalent when her ideas are hampered by the small detail of human nature.
Cite? From what I can find, none of her books is even close to being the biggest selling novel of all time. I found a number of about 25 million copies until 2008 for all her books. There are many books with higher figures than that.
Oh, does it? Actually, it may surprise you, but I am an atheist myself. However, I do not consider religion a global scam (or conspiracy). She volunteered to testify against her colleagues back in the days of mccarthyanism. Call it what you like, personal issues, axe to grind, unfinished business, trauma from the past undealt with, but whatever caused it, she sounds slightly obsessed to me.