From The Ayn Rand Letter, Volume IV, Number 2, November-December 1975:
Now I want to give you a brief indication of the kinds of issues that are coming up, on which you might want to know my views.
1"The Presidential election of 1976. I urge you, as emphatically as I can, not to support the candidacy of Ronald Reagan. I urge you not to work for or advocate his nomination, and not to vote for him. My reasons are as follows: Mr. Reagan is not a champion of capitalism, but a conservative in the worst sense of that word—i.e., an advocate of a mixed economy with government controls slanted in favor of business rather than labor (which, philosophically, is as untenable a position as one could choose—see Fred Kinnan in Atlas Shrugged, pp. 541-2). This description applies in various degrees to most Republican politicians, but most of them preserve some respect for the rights of the individual. Mr. Reagan does not: he opposes the right to abortion."
I have already noted multiple times that the real world has seen systems that are very close to, if not actually the same as, the dystopian systems that she portrays, and these systems have caused untold suffering for hundreds of millions of people. In fact, at the time she was writing, there was a real, actual threat of such communist systems spreading across the world. If after all that you still keep repeating this complaint, I can’t help but think you’re not arguing in good faith.
I have only your word to take for the claim that people regularly and consistently understanding her philosophy to behave contemptibly. I have no evidence for it. Mostly it seems like a few of the political opponents of this board’s dominant viewpoint attempt to find inspiration in her works, and that pisses people off enough that they go off half cocked about Rand and her ideas.
It’s possible that a small minority of the people who take her work seriously behave like jerks, but try that argument to condemn Islam and Muslims and see where it gets you. And there you actually have verifiable evidence of crazy, harmful believers.
No, Ayn Rand was not arguing in good faith. He made up a fictional enemy, which was, perhaps, supposed to represent the real evils of communism… But it didn’t match. It was a coarse and stupid cartoon version.
It’s like showing Skeletor cartoons, and claiming they’re object lessons regarding Nazism. They don’t work that way.
Ellsworth Toohey was a childish two-dimensional cardboard cutout of a character, and the villains in Atlas Shrugged were very little better. (A little, yes. She learned, and grew as a writer.)
Her allegory doesn’t even have the sincerity of Lewis’s Aslan in Narnia. She wasn’t competent to write Orwell’s 1984. She put together an “Ooh, Scary!” child’s portrait of evil, without any regard for the reasons that Communism and Nazism came into power in the first place. She wrote a damned fairy tale, not a functional allegory.
I’ve just re-read every one of my posts in this thread, and I couldn’t find where I ever said such a thing. Can you help me out here? What are you referring to?
No, it’s her shallow presentation of her ideas that pisses me off. She takes what might actually even be good ideas…and distorts them to excessive and extreme caricatures. She engages in a straw-man approach, painting up ideas that she opposes as “anti-life” without any honest examination of the actual viewpoints of those she disagrees with. It’s extremely childish of her, and betrays the weakness of her screed.
Instead of Narnia, it’s a little more like The Screwtape Letters. Or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. She puts words in other people’s mouths, then convicts them on the basis of these words. Anyone with any integrity would quote what the others actually say and believe, and then reject their ideas on that basis. (And, given that this is Communism, it wouldn’t have been hard!)
I’m almost certain I never said anything of this kind. I think you may be projecting somehow.
The people that she characterised may not have been realistic(although several of the Atlas Shrugged villains behave, in actions if not motivations or statements, very similarly to real crony capitalists), but the economic/social system that she portrayed on the other hand was very similar to how communism disregards individual incentives as a mechanism and attempts to replace it with social control. She was not, as you repeatedly say, building a fantasy that had no connection at all with the real world. She was portraying a system which was very close to several real world systems that, at the time she wrote, had not been shown to be failures, although they would, 40 years down the line, and for reasons largely similar to the ones she writes about. Without incentives, people cease to perform economic activity. And as I rebutted you in this thread before too(and which point you ignored), Atlas Shrugged doesn’t just have the ‘Atlases’ stopping work, but a large number of people who are sick of their enterprise going unrewarded, and punished even. The story is about Atlases, sure, but I never see criticism of other authors for choosing to write about a cast of characters.
That’s just like, your opinion, man. Her work isn’t supposed to be an allegory. It is dystopian fantasy based on the real world, and real world systems of organisation, applied in a somewhat different setting and manner than they were in the real world. I’m saying your complaint that it is somehow completely a product of her fevered mind and thus completely invalid is…invalid.
Also, Orwell’s 1984 was targeted at a completely different system/idea. The correct comparison is Animal Farm, and the correct book to compare Animal Farm to would be We The Living. Have you read that?
Sure. I’m referring to Hershele Ostropoler’s quote which I was responding to.
Very true. (“Opinions are like toenails: they are generally beneath us, and serve very little purpose.”)
No… But I did read the collection of essays, “Apollo and Dionysus,” which did nothing to make me admire her in any way.
I enjoyed The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged as dramatic fiction, but rejected the moral views, in very much the same way I enjoyed Narnia, but reject the religious views. In this, there is a very small minority here, as most people in this thread despise her morals and her writing.
Oops! My blunder. I thought you were still addressing me. My apologies.
To be fair, I do think Ayn Rand’s writing is slightly better than J.K. Rowling, but only slightly. J.K. Rowling wins as being the superior author between the two, mainly through a fairly impressive imagination and complete lack of pretense.
Also, J.K. Rowling’s characters are more believable.
I’m not an Objectivist so I don’t have a dog in this race but I’ve read her work and I’ve seen a lot of people who criticize her even though it’s clear they haven’t read anything by her. Statements like "Rand believed charity was immoral. is something I hear quite a bit even though she specifically said there was nothing wrong with helping other people and having goodwill towards your fellow man so long as it didn’t involve a sacrifice on your part.
But…what does that mean? I should harbor good thoughts toward the needy…but not drop a dollar into the poor box? That would be a sacrifice, wouldn’t it? Yes, a small one, but how else can it be defined?
Remember the bit in Galt’s Gulch where John Galt explains that the word “give” is a bad word in his perfect society. No one ever “gives” anything, in her objectivist utopia.
I read two of her books, (Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead) and one thing that got me is that she seemed completely unable to fathom what exactly altruism and unselfishness really is about. The villains in Atlas only seem to want to help others to spite the heros. The “looters” aren’t really trying to help others – they just want to steal from the heros in order to punish them.
And the heros are so ridiculous. You have Ragnar Danneskjöld, a pirate who’s hijacking relief ships destined for people in need – only to take those resources and give them to rich people. We’re supposed to think this is somehow noble, because “well, he’s giving it back to the people it REALLY belongs to.” But not because he felt it was stolen from them – he just wants the “creators” to have enough gold to design a new world. (If you think about it, what about everyone ELSE who paid their income taxes? Maybe I don’t want it to go to those rich bastards, who already have enough fucking money, you dick!)
Or one of the “strikers” who is so pissed off at the new government laws, he sets his own oil wells on fire, and a bunch of innocent people are killed, just out of spite. (Yeah, a person like that sounds like JUST the kinda guy I’d want to work for!)
And the whole “strike” is basically a bunch of Eric Cartmans saying, “Screw you guys, I’m going home.”
Don’t get me wrong – I do not, in any way, endorse communism. But Rand’s solution is a load of bullshit.
The fact that she named a pirate Ragnar Danneskjöld caused me to burst into hysterical laughter when I first read AS. I wondered if his pirate ship had quietly elegant Scandinavian-designed berths and cabinets in the cabins.
Again, she holds ‘altruism’ and ‘sacrifice’ to mean different things than you. A mother who throws herself in front of a bus for her own child is not sacrificing herself. Someone giving to a cause that they think is important is not ‘giving’ in the sense Galt is using it.
The type of giving she despises is the one born of social compulsion, from values others hold but you do not. Say you’re an atheist, you feel that religion is a great drain upon the cognitive, financial and moral resources available to us all, but the society that you live in holds church donations to be the greatest and highest good, and you give to conform to that ideal. That is the sort of thing she would hold as sacrifice.
She does write cogently if you take her work as a whole. Most anything taken out of context doesn’t make sense. I’m not picking up these definitions from something outside her books. Atlas Shrugged, for instance, lays all of this out very clearly in the book. You just have to be paying attention.
ETA: It is funny how her critics(not necessarily you) carp at her for repeatedly hitting them in the face with the point she’s making, yet none of them actually get it.
As I’ve repeated before in this thread, I comprehend honest disagreement just fine(in fact, I disagree with some very fundamental premises that Rand holds). You (and many others) however, demonstrate misunderstanding and misreading, not disagreement.
If you want evidence of your misreading/misunderstanding, go through our interactions in this thread again. I’ve noted at least two instances where the text of Atlas Shrugged directly, explicitly contradicts your understanding of it. If you call disagreement with a strawman honest disagreement, then I’m afraid our interaction serves no purpose.
