Karl Marx Shrugged?

Mad Finn

A few months ago the BBC reported that the current economic uncertaintly had led to a huge increase in the number of people in Germany buying Karl Marx's magnum opus Das Kapital.

Today, the Guardian, via the Irish Times reports that Amazon.com is also seeing a spike in the sales of Atlas Shrugged, the magnum opus of Ayn Rand a Russian born American who developed a philosophy called Objectivism. This creed is based on what she called The Virtue of Selfishness and extolls the benefits of devoted self interest and unfettered capitalism to the complete disregard of any concern for the effects of one's actions on anybody else.

Altruism is immoral, sympathy is a weakness, responsibility is only to one's own needs and happiness.

Now the legacy of Karl Marx is far reaching and it has been interpreted (or misinterpreted) and realised by oodles of different people in many different ways. But Ayn Rand is less well known.

There was a film made about her a few years ago, starring Helen Mirren and Peter Fonda, which focussed on her affair with a much younger protege which she insisted should be discussed and endorsed by both her husband and her paramour's wife. She basically insisted on telling them that on such a day at such a time every week, she and her toy boy would meet to roger each other senseless. Their respective spouses had no right to object to this. They were only pursuing their own self interest.

Not surprisingly, all the philosophising in the world found it hard to convince the wounded parties. The best line in the film comes from Peter Fonda as Rand's husband, when asked to explain some part of her philosophy. "I don't understand a word of it. I never have!"

Quite.

I have just one empirical observation to make. Although they can often be intolerably self righteous and presumptuous, most commited socialist I have met have been incredibly attractive people. Positive, optimistic, keen to see the fundamental goodness in people. Confident that the essential fairness that attracted them to socialism will be embraced by most people.

Whereas fans of Ayn Rand are, in my experience, hideous negative oppressive people who use her meanderings as a comfort blanket to rationalise all that is greedy, selfish, uncaring, violent and unjust.

Here's hoping that most of those who buy Atlas Shrugged on Amazon use it either as a door stop (it's big enough) or are so repulsed by its nihilistic message that they develop a more generous outlook on life and the world.

turgon

Your taring a lot of people Mad Finn - Ayn Rand has a huge following on the internet. It doesn't seem as if you have read Atlas Shrugged so maybe before you go jumping to conclusions about it you should read it. Your train of thought would seem similar to someone who considers the Koran a book of war based only on what some extremist people do after studying it.

I havent read it personally, and Im not going to for a few months, so other posters here such as donegalfella or Valmont will be in a much better position to debate this.

Naz_st

If donegalfella doesn't have something to post on this I'll fall off my chair in shock!

P. Breathnach

turgon wrote: »

...Ayn Rand has a huge following on the internet...

I hope that is not presented as an argument that we should take her seriously.

turgon

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I hope that is not presented as an argument that we should take her seriously.

Of course not. I was merely stating that there would be lot of opposition to the OP.

Mad Finn

turgon wrote: »

Ayn Rand has a huge following on the internet. It doesn't seem as if you have read Atlas Shrugged so maybe before you go jumping to conclusions about it you should read it.

I will happily admit to not having read it. But I have read, as it seems have you, the writings of her interpreters to be found on sites such as Capitalism.org and the Ayn Rand Institute. I have also watched various clips of the leader of the ARI, a truly monstrous specimen of humanity called Yaron Brook, rationalising mass murder of civilians as a legitimate political tactic. He's so gruesome that he even made Bill O'Reilly, no shrinking violet, gag on air.

Rand has been dead for many years. At this stage, it doesn't matter what she says. It DOES matter what her fans say because they are still around. And I've never met a nice one. Or read of one that I would want to meet.

Soldie

So your point, essentially, is that in your opinion, those espousing to the ideals of socialism are 'incredibly attractive', 'positive, optimistic' and 'keen to see the fundamental goodness in people' - and that those who follow capitalism are 'hideous negative oppressive people' who support 'all that is greedy, selfish, uncaring, violent and unjust'. Are you serious?

Far from the apparently inherent beauty of those idealists purchasing Karl Marx books, the practicing Marxists are those we see lined up outside Dáil Éireann every other day, demanding immunity from an economic climate that they were happy to benefit from when it suited them. Is this incredibly attractive? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose.

turgon

Mad Finn wrote: »

Rand has been dead for many years. At this stage, it doesn't matter what she says.

So your giving out about her ideology while at the same time saying what she says doesn't matter

Mad Finn wrote: »

It DOES matter what her fans say because they are still around. And I've never met a nice one. Or read of one that I would want to meet.

Thats like saying that you would never want to meet a Catholic based on what you have seen of right wind group Còir. You cant tar every adherent of Rands philosophy with the same brush.

Like take your giving out about Rand telling her husband about the other men she was with. Her telling her husband that had not to do with her "self interest" but her simply having different moral values relative to you. Im sure there are people who believe in Rand and completely abhore the idea of cheating on your partner.

When making an argument against an ideology you cant just attack these scenarios at random. You have to examine scenarios that were directly caused by ideology only.

And as regards not being any "nice" Rand followers: if everyone on this forum was as articulate, logical and as respectful as donegalfella, who I know is really into her, then the conversation here would be a lot more enjoyable.

Mad Finn

Soldie wrote: »

So your point, essentially, is that in your opinion, those espousing to the ideals of socialism are 'incredibly attractive', 'positive, optimistic' and 'keen to see the fundamental goodness in people' - and that those who follow capitalism are 'hideous negative oppressive people' who support 'all that is greedy, selfish, uncaring, violent and unjust'. Are you serious?

No. I said that those who follow Ayn Rand and espouse her more extreme form of capitalist virtue are hideous negative people. You can have a common sense rational view of the market system without worshipping it as a moral framework.

It's a question of values. From what I have seen of Randies they seem to think that morality should derive from the interactions of free market enterprise and that any attempt to set conditions on such activity is immoral in itself.

Truly, it is the other way round. A market doesn't HAVE any values. Any more than the weather does. They're both just mechanisms. Your values should dictate how you set the initial conditions and ground rules for a market system and then let it operate freely under an agreed set of principles.

It's the difference between respecting the weather, ie wearing a coat when it gets cold, and worshipping it as the shaper of your destiny. The former is common sense; the latter is the standard definition of being a lunatic.

P. Breathnach

Soldie wrote: »

... the practicing Marxists are those we see lined up outside Dáil Éireann every other day ...

Every other day? I doubt if we have enough practising Marxists to keep up that level of political demonstration. I also doubt if many of the people who demonstrate outside the Dáil are Marxists.

nesf

Mad Finn wrote: »

No. I said that those who follow Ayn Rand and espouse her more extreme form of capitalist virtue are hideous negative people.

You're making the fundamental mistake of believing that all followers of Rand must subscribe to what you interpret her positions to be. This a really bad basis to throw around insults from. I'm not a Randian and I don't take her philosophy particularly seriously but dismissing it as the above is nonsense.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I also doubt if many of the people who demonstrate outside the Dáil are Marxists.

They'll claim to be when it suits them.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mad Finn

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well if you want to hold Marx's supporters accountable for that number (I take it you're including World War II as well as the Russian and Chinese civil wars, Cambodia, Korea, Vietnam etc) I would throw in every war of acquisition, by proxy or otherwise, in which the west has tried to subjugate other countries for its financial or strategic ends.

Most of the wars in the middle east, for example, in pursuit of what Capitalism.org calls "our oil" on the grounds that "we" have the knowhow both to extract, refine and use it and therefore the people on whose territory it exists have no ownership rights whatsoever.

There are many potential reasons for having an affair, of course, but the self-interested pursuit of sexual pleasure would definitely seem to be high on the list. So maybe Rand wasn't all that mistaken about human nature after all?

It's not the fact that she had an affair that's queasy. That desire is only natural. It's the fact that she confronted the respective partners and ordered them to sanction it.

Evelyn Waugh illustrated the dilemma rather more sympathetically, and humourously, when he proposed to a much younger prettier woman urging her to consider "Think how nice it would be for me!". At least he had his tongu in his cheek.

Or if you want a portrayal which was more pathetic than sympathetic then check out David Brent (Ricky Gervais) telling his colleagues in the Office that there's good news and bad news: they're being sacked; he's being promoted. And being surprised when they don't see the happy side of things.

Mad Finn

nesf wrote: »

You're making the fundamental mistake of believing that all followers of Rand must subscribe to what you interpret her positions to be. This a really bad basis to throw around insults from. I'm not a Randian and I don't take her philosophy particularly seriously but dismissing it as the above is nonsense.
.

I'm talking more about my experiences of talking with and reading the words of her supporters than her. It's like the old adage. "I don't know about Christ but I don't think much of those Christians"

Let's just say her ambassadors don't paint an enticing picture. At least, not for me.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dar

Mad Finn wrote: »

I would throw in every war of acquisition, by proxy or otherwise, in which the west has tried to subjugate other countries for its financial or strategic ends.

Rand had a few things to say about the taking of other people's rightful property using the threat of force or law. You really should actually read some of her work before coming out with this sort of nonsense. Rand despised people who steal the wealth and work of others to survive.

Mad Finn

Dar wrote: »

Rand had a few things to say about the taking of other people's rightful property using the threat of force or law. You really should actually read some of her work before coming out with this sort of nonsense. Rand despised people who steal the wealth and work of others to survive.

Like I said, and have been saying, it is her supporters that have come out with gems like "It's our oil, we're only defending it". (See capitalism.org)

It's the director of the institute which bears her name who said on American TV. "We have got to become more brutal in Iraq. We must say to the Iraqis. If you continue to support the insurrection, you will not have homes, you will not have schools, you will not have mosques."

There must be something in her work which resonates with the most brutal, unsympathetic and avaricious people in our society. Maybe she's being misinterpreted. But if even her husband of 50 years couldn't make head nor tail of what she was talking about, I suspect that the opportunities for confusion were many.

I'm pretty sure Marx doesn't talk about gulags and army purges in his work either. But sometimes, people are judged by what other people think they say.

Put it another way: Today, is your beef with Marx, or Marxists?

nesf

Mad Finn wrote: »

I'm talking more about my experiences of talking with and reading the words of her supporters than her. It's like the old adage. "I don't know about Christ but I don't think much of those Christians"

Let's just say her ambassadors don't paint an enticing picture. At least, not for me.

Eh, so you'll remain wilfully ignorant of what she said because you dislike a few of her present day disciples? That'd be like me refusing to read Das Kapital because I had issues with Stalin.

turgon

Mad Finn wrote: »

I'm pretty sure Marx doesn't talk about gulags and army purges in his work either. But sometimes, people are judged by what other people think they say.

If anyone here accuses Marx of being a murderer they are simply applying the same kind of examination of his work that you did to Rands.

You criticized Rand solely, and I emphasize solely, on the actions of a number of her adherents, without ever reading any of her work. If we applied this method we could criticize Marx solely on the basis that Stalin and Lenin killed 55 million people at a rate of 1 every 20 seconds. And yet you say this is wrong?

So please dont force us to apply a more favorable method of judgment on historical figures you happen to like, and harsher method on those you dont.

Mad Finn wrote: »

Put it another way: Today, is your beef with Marx, or Marxists?

Today, is your beef with Rand or a select group of "Randists"? The latter methinks.

Mad Finn wrote: »

Maybe she's being misinterpreted.

But its not like your actually going to make an effort to think for yourself, instead relying on what select persons tell you to think.

P. Breathnach

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I have considered the above. There is so much that I disagree with that I don't know where to start. Most of all, it encompasses a view of human nature that is not like the nature of those humans I know, or know about.

Nineteenth century capitalism is not a good model for society. The idea that "men who are free to produce, have no incentive to loot" presumes a degree of freedom that was not generally available at that time: there was exploitation of colonies, usually involving force; there was hard grind and poverty in the industrial cities with no way out for most people; there was the reluctance to alleviate distress caused by the famine in Ireland.

While war is destructive, it is often engaged in because it is seen as economically beneficial by at least one of the parties (typically, the aggressor). The fact that is often a mistaken view does not emerge until much later.

This is utopian stuff.

Dar

Mad Finn wrote: »

There must be something in her work which resonates with the most brutal, unsympathetic and avaricious people in our society.

Not really - that sort of person will us any flimsy justification that passes their way. Doesn't matter if that justification is that they "don't deserve it", "it's god's will!" or "it's for the good of The People".

Mad Finn

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

WHAATT?????

The "longest period of peace in history" encompasses, off the top of my head, the Crimean War (1854) inolving Russia, Britain, France and Turkey, the "Year of Revolutions" in 1848, the Risorgimento in Italy, the Franco Prussian War and the vicious communal strife in France in its aftermath (1871) The Numerous Balkan Wars in the 50 years before 1914.

And that's before you take into account all the colonial wars in which European armies (frequently privately funded armies like the "John's Companies" of the East India Company) laid waste to Africa and Asia in the search of riches. Just off the top of my head these would include the Indian Mutiny, the Opium Wars, the Boer War etc etc.

Like I said, many of these were financed by private capital raised in the stock markets of Europe. You might say, "Ah but Ms Rand doesn't condone this in her writings" and maybe she doesn't, but your quote suggests that she preferred instead to ignore them, thereby leaving the way clear for her intellectual heirs to make statements like "It's our oil anyway."

To paraphrase Groucho Marx "That's a new meaning of the phrase 'long period of peace' with which I'm not familiar"

Mad Finn

nesf wrote: »

Eh, so you'll remain wilfully ignorant of what she said because you dislike a few of her present day disciples? That'd be like me refusing to read Das Kapital because I had issues with Stalin.

Have you read Das Kapital?

Hats off if you have.

I haven't.

biko

A friend that was/is an Ayn Rand fan also believed that walking up to strangers and pointing out their bad fashion sense was actually doing them a favour.

Needless to say we have many heated arguments

Mad Finn

turgon wrote: »

Today, is your beef with Rand or a select group of "Randists"? The latter methinks.

I think I've tried to make that point very clear.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

turgon

Mad Finn wrote: »

I think I've tried to make that point very clear.

I would have no problem at the moment to head off to the history forum and start a thread on the evils of Stalinism and communist Russia. I would reinforce my argument with facts and figures from books I have read and knowledge accumulated from studying history not so long ago.

On the other hand, I would under no circumstances start a thread in politics denouncing Marxism solely on the basis of what its adherents (Stalin and Lenin) have done. I have not read The Communist Manifesto (in the post Monday though) or Das Kapital so I would not consider myself knowledgeable enough to start such a debate. So what justification would I have to judge Marxism having not studied it?

The latter is what you have done right here. You have criticized Ayn Rand based only on what some of here adherents have said and/or done. You have not even read what she has written, and you still criticise. This is a ridiculous way to go about a debate.

Its worthwhile to admit when your out of your depth, something I did on my very first post on this thread when I admitted I had not read her work and my argument was based solely on what you were saying. As you will see, none of my arguments are based on Ayns Rands philosophy at all, but simply on you inability to be a good adjudicator of Rand.

No offense, Mad Finn, but I think your out of your depth.

Link 1, Link 2

Valmont

Mad Finn wrote: »

I have just one empirical observation to make......most commited socialist........ Positive, optimistic, keen to see the fundamental goodness in people.

Despite your rash generalisations, I would argue that above all else, the values that Ayn Rand espoused are among the most positive, optimistic and downright inspirational ideals that I have come across and the few "fans" that I have conversed with on the subject reflected this in their enthusiasm for both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. I won't even attempt to box all Marxists into a certain category.

Phrases such as 'the fundamental goodness in people' are the sort of pithy aphorisms that represent the propaganda of the looters;) and how they can ultimately guilt people into turning their attention away from themselves and toward the pursuit of altruistic and charitable ideals, which, at the very worst, betray one's moral obligation to succeed and prosper on one's own terms.

oscarBravo

I've read Atlas Shrugged a couple of times. My lasting impression of it, as a pseudo-philosophical work, is to wonder why she feels the need to work so hard at caricaturing the type of person she disagrees with.

Valmont

Mad Finn wrote: »

It's not the fact that she had an affair that's queasy. That desire is only natural. It's the fact that she confronted the respective partners and ordered them to sanction it.

I seriously doubt this. Had you read Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead, you would see that a central theme is that any person should not need to have their personal goals or desires sanctioned by another before pursuing them. OP I really think you need to read some Ayn Rand before we can put any credence on your opinions.

MoominPapa

Every time I hear of Ayn Rand L Ron Hubbard springs to mind

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Meh. So long as I never have to read John Galt's soliloquy ever again.

asdasd

My lasting impression of it, as a pseudo-philosophical work,

My lasting impression is of turgidly written ****e.

Rand's disciples should not be pro-war, if her written attacks on war are anything to go by, but I have found that the Randians, and some Libertarians ( like the appalling Samizdata in the UK) are really neo-conservatives, American cheerleaders, or Israeli Firsters. Which is not the same as Libertarian. ( American libertarians tend to be anti-war, outside of Randianism).

Most supported the Iraqi war.

In terms of what she actually believes in it has to be said that some people fail, and fail badly. they may well be weak, they may well be "lesser people" than the better, more succesful entrepeneur or private sector worker, or engineer ( Rand loved Engineers). Or maybe old.

If they dont get to live off the State, if we have the anarcho-capitalism they want, people will die, or be shuffled off to workhouses.

**** that.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mad Finn

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

OK. I have admitted from the outset that I haven't read her stuff but have a great distaste for her followers. Why this implies that I should set aside a large chunk of my life to plough through Atlas Shrugged just to see if they have misconceived notions about her thoughts is beyond me.

Why not just take what she says from the horse's mouth?

Here's the girl herself in an interview with Phil Donahue from 1980. Watch from about 4 minutes 5s where Phil asks for an example where helping others is a bad thing.

What sort of numb nut admires a person who objects to disabled toilets and wheel chair ramps?

BTW. Spool on and you'll get to hear her views about who owns the oil in the middle east.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

earwicker

I'd argue that those who parasitically want to live off the ingenuity and inventiveness of others tend to become unthinking and uncreative in other aspects of their lives as well, often falling back on other people's pat rhetoric to support their positions.

Surely you can see the irony?

turgon

Mad Finn wrote: »

Why this implies that I should set aside a large chunk of my life to plough through Atlas Shrugged just to see if they have misconceived notions about her thoughts is beyond me.

If reading one book the size of Lord of the Rings will take up a "large chunk" of your life then your obviously not going to be around for much longer.

Mad Finn wrote: »

Why not just take what she says from the horse's mouth?

Ah but thats only her interpretation of the work

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dar

Mad Finn wrote: »

Here's the girl herself in an interview with Phil Donahue from 1980. Watch from about 4 minutes 5s where Phil asks for an example where helping others is a bad thing.

What sort of numb nut admires a person who objects to disabled toilets and wheel chair ramps?

She didn't say she objects to disabled toilets and chair ramps. She objected to them being built by tax payers money and maintains that it should be funded by the disabled themselves or through private charities.

nesf

asdasd wrote: »

Rand's disciples should not be pro-war, if her written attacks on war are anything to go by, but I have found that the Randians, and some Libertarians ( like the appalling Samizdata in the UK) are really neo-conservatives, American cheerleaders, or Israeli Firsters. Which is not the same as Libertarian. ( American libertarians tend to be anti-war, outside of Randianism).

Being a fan of Rand doesn't automatically make you a Libertarian or even a Liberal in the European/Classical sense no more than not liking Rand's prevents you from being one or anything else.

Just as there are plenty of self-declared fans of Marx who are lunatics the situation with Rand is similar. I wouldn't dismiss Marx based on what his more extreme fans get up to and so on.

thebman

I'd like to point out that there are very few popular ideaologies that promote war.

War is something people rationalise as a necessary evil. It is not something that anyone should look forward to or have as part of their ideaology. I don't think any popular movement has had war as a core principle rather than a means to an end.

Oh and there is a war economy albeit funded by the taxpayers usually/unfortunately IMO. The factories that produce in war are producing the bullets for the guns.

nesf

thebman wrote: »

I'd like to point out that there are very few popular ideaologies that promote war.

Generally some form of nationalism (but not all forms) is the ideology in question.

silverharp

nesf wrote: »

Being a fan of Rand doesn't automatically make you a Libertarian or even a Liberal in the European/Classical sense no more than not liking Rand's prevents you from being one or anything else.

Yeah , Greenspan being a case in point

oscarBravo

Dar wrote: »

She didn't say she objects to disabled toilets and chair ramps. She objected to them being built by tax payers money and maintains that it should be funded by the disabled themselves or through private charities.

I have a problem with that. The underlying tenet is that disabled people have no inherent right to a reasonable quality of life, but that they should live in hope that someone will take pity on them and magnanimously grant it to them.

thebman

oscarBravo wrote: »

I have a problem with that. The underlying tenet is that disabled people have no inherent right to a reasonable quality of life, but that they should live in hope that someone will take pity on them and magnanimously grant it to them.

I don't really want in on this argument but can't help but comment on this as it reminds me of a Blackadder quote.

BA: There was a problem with the plan.
Baldrick: What was that sir?
BA: It was b*ll*cks!

It is the inevitable failure of a system without state that it leaves the disabled to suffer unfairly. Private charities is a sorry attempt to act like such a system could work.

Who is going to donate to the private charities when everyone is only out for themselves anyway?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mad Finn

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Clearly a dilemma that causes much anguish. :rolleyes:

I am reminded of one of the great cinematic works of art of our time.

"I want to be a woman. From now on I want you all to call me Loretta. I want to have babies."

"You can't have babies!"

"Don't you oppress me!"

"I'm not opressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb!! Where's the foetus going to gestate? You going to stick it in a box?"

"Wait a minute. I have a plan. Let's say that Stan can't have babies, because he's a man and hasn't got a womb which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans. But he can have the RIGHT to have babies!"

Don't know what made me think of that.

turgon

But do you think the state should provide free education to giver everyone an equal enough starting block?

Dar

oscarBravo wrote: »

I have a problem with that. The underlying tenet is that disabled people have no inherent right to a reasonable quality of life, but that they should live in hope that someone will take pity on them and magnanimously grant it to them.

I see.

So we should take pity on them and magnanimously grant them improved quality of life and pay for it with other people's money without their consul or consent?

How charitable of you.