The problem I have with Objectivism is that it ignores the entire science of evolution. Rand created an image of “man” as if he had sprung, Athena like, from Zeus’s brow. Man as a supremely rational being. But that’s such a myopic view of what we know about ourselves from biology. We are a social species, always have been, with roots going back millions of years. Sure, it’s easy to go overboard with the social aspects, and I can see where her challenging convention ideas of altruism has some value. But in the end, we’re not isolated, rational entities. That isn’t even necessarily an ideal. It might be for Vulcans, but not for humans.
Both Panache and you are saying the same thing in different ways I think, and it is a very valid criticism that I agree with. The thing is, the importance of evolution in behaviour and the functioning of our minds/habits/needs is only coming to be generally accepted as established fact now. Isn’t it slightly unfair to criticise her for not incorporating it into her worldview?
Not really. For the same reason that it’s fair to criticise the Communists for the same failing.
While it may not have been known to be driven by evolution, the knowledge that people are corrupted from their philosophical ideals by the needs of their flesh goes back to the dawn of civilisation. “The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak” is a 2, 000 year old expression. And the Enkidu/Gilgamesh juxtaposition goes back >2, 000 years earlier still.
So while we may not be able to criticise Rand of the Communists for failing to specifically address the effect of evolution on behaviour, we certainly can criticise them for blithely ignoring the fact that the body corrupts the mind even in the most devout.
Ignoring the impact of “human nature” on the practical application of a philosophy isn’t some minor failing of a philosophy. And being unaware that human nature stems from evolutionary roots is not at all the same as being unaware that this human nature exists.
The problem with Objectivism and Communism is that they both work only if the people involved are not only utterly committed to the philosophy at the outset, but are perpetually incorruptible. Both philosophies come crashing down like a house of cards as soon as you ask “What happens when somebody cheats”. They both rely on a a society where nobody wants to cheat. But people will always cheat when it comes to matters of bodily survival. Very few people will starve to death rather than stealing the loaf of bread waved under their nose. Fewer still will watch their child starve to death. And people will often cheat when it comes to obtaining sex. So by extension both phiosophies rely on a society where nobody has any bodily needs.
These philosophies can only ever only work in a society where the flesh is as strong as the spirit. But they never address how such a society can be created. It is axiomatic that such a society exists first before the philosophy can be applied. Communism avoids the question by inventing a “post-scarcity” society where all bodily needs are magically fulfilled. Objectivism requires a “Galt’s Gulch” where everybody who enters has somehow made their physical desires subservient to their ideals. But in such societies *any *system of government will work, including anarchy or democracy.
Saying that Rand and the communists didn’t know that these drives of the flesh were caused by our evolutionary history is actually irrelevant. They knew that they existed. If they were caused by Thetans or the curse of God, it wouldn’t change their effect. The world would be exactly the same regardless of the cause.
So it’s perfectly reasonable to criticise the philosophers for failing to address the way they knew the world to be. Knowing why the world is that way doesn’t change the fact that it is, and the “is” is what any valid philosophy needs to address.
I didn’t mean to imply that our physical needs somehow “corrupt” our mental or emotional needs. I meant that both are equal, and their exercise is equally noble. Basing your philosophy on the needs of a rational consciousness, you’re ignoring the needs of your physical nature. Rand would disagree with me vehemently, based on her own life, but the evidence of her life supports me.
And as far as politics is concerned . . . she stated many times that there needs to be a change in ethics before a change in politics.
Not really. Had she been born 100 years earlier, maybe. But she was active in the 60s and 70s (I saw her speak a few times in Boston in the mid 70s), and those ideas were not some esoteric science unaccessible to the non-scientist. But she never made any attempt to understand H. sapiens, as an actual species of animal. Instead, she focused on one aspect (rationality) to the exclusion of all others. That is not to say that I don’t agree with many of the things she said, but it’s like she was observing our species through a filter, and that filter didn’t allow certain salient facts through.
I know it’s popular on this MB to dis her as a writer, but I thoroughly enjoyed her books (The Fountainhead more than Atlas Shrugged). As a philosopher, though, I find her to be lacking.
That illustrates the point that both Galt’s Gulch and our own system are not as egalitarian as we pretend. There is a divide between the employer and the employee. An employee’s salary is based on mutual negotiation between the employer and employee. But the employer sets his own salary without needed the agreement of the employee. Rand wrote how it was outrageous for an employee to think he should get paid enough money to be able to buy a yacht. But it’s common for employers to pay themselves that kind of salary.
This system works and I’m not saying it’s necessarily wrong. But people who claim it’s a system where everyone meets on a equal basis are deluding themselves.
Rand and the objectivists seem to think it would be outrageous for employees to have control over the employers. But they accept it as natural for the employers to have the exact same control over the employees. Objectivism is based on hierarchy not equality.
So what happens if a Gulch resident becomes too ill to “produce” and becomes a “moocher”? Say healthy young Jane, who makes her living in the Gulch as a seamstress, hairdresser and dance instructor to the kiddies of the Gulch, is stricken by a bad case of progressive multiple sclerosis and ends up unable to walk or use her hands? Is she kicked out? Is she dependent on charity? Is she left to starve?
Or are you positing a soul gets his/her parents together to do the Wild Thang, Parent Trap style?
I think you’re dead on here, except that we must also state the other side, in that the James Taggarts of the world (with no Talent nor Drive) would, in Rand’s ideal world, accept their lowly status, not use emotional manipulation (nor group action) to bully the Talented into producing for them, and collect trash if that was the only way they could make a living.
In other words, needing to change human nature every bit as much as Communism would need to, only with fewer beneficiaries of the change.
If she had not bought insurance, then she would ne dependent on charity.
I’d have to imagine that anyone in the Gulch would be prudent enough to know that catastrophe can happen at any time, and so would save, could go to their friends (it wasn’t charity Rand objected to, but the societal or governmental expectation to give that she objected to, IMO), would be dependent on charity … or yes, failing all of that, be left to starve.
As a good liberal, I just think we don’t leave people to starve… ever. But I can understand the ideal even as many holes are poked in it.
Then others in the community may decide to help her out…but there will be no pressure from government or society to do so, and if nobody helps at all that’s just the way it goes.
If the ninety-nine percent would just happily work for the benefit of the one percent without expecting any reward, we’d have an ideal society - as long as you’re part of the one percent.
So “insurance salesman” would be a “producer” job in the Gulch? I find that oddly amusing.
Why? Insurance has value, just like any other product or service you’d be willing to pay for.
If you think Rand believed folks should work for the benefit of others “without expecting any reward,” then I think you’re reading her wrong.
First of all, if she is "too ill to produce, that doesn’t make her a moocher . . . unless, of course, she actually does become a moocher by trying to convince others that they have a duty to hand over their money to her, as an entitlement.
But the thing is, you believe she should be helped, and so do I. In fact, even in our society millions and millions of people elect politicians that vote for programs to help her. If you get rid of all the obstacles and bureaucracy and red tape, she’d get a whole lot more than she’s getting now. In Rand’s utopia, charitable organizations still exist, they just wouldn’t be run by the government. When people are no longer forced to be their brothers’ keepers, they’ll realize that it’s in fact in their own rational self-interest to live in a world with minimal suffering.
It has negative value. Either the cost is too high and the company is profitable or the cost is too low and it can’t afford to pay claims. The cost is always too high.
Absolute bullshit. Show me an example in the real world where this was ever true, where private contributions devoid of tax breaks and publicity departments were enough to fill the void.
No, I’m thinking I’m reading her right. She just wasn’t thinking too clearly.
In Rand’s world, the producers are emphatically told to expect to be fully rewarded for their work. But as people have been pointing out, most people don’t fit Rand’s idea of a producer. Most of the people are going to be working for a producer and they have two option in Rand’s world. They can either be happy with whatever their producer chooses to gives them with no expectation of anything more. Or they can feel they should be getting more reward than the producers want to give them - in which case they’re denounced as moochers. (Unless they actually succeed in getting what they think they deserve in which case they’re denounced as looters.)
Rand may have depicted workers in her novel who were happy to work their hearts out so their boss could enjoy the good life. But so did Margaret Mitchell.