Ayn Rand: sad sicko heroine of right wing & libertarians

Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

I didn't know much about Ayn Rand before. I knew some weird movies were made about her second-rate philosophers contained in her unreadable books. But recently I learned she was an active supporter and witness for the House American Activities Committee during the height of the witch trials, a despicable act on her part. Now there are two new bios out on her, and it turns out that she was a really twisted person who admired serial killers and ran her own abusive mini-cult. And her books still sell and she's admired by people like Alan Greenspan and Rush Limbaugh. Weird.

http://www.slate.com/id/2233966/

Quote:

Ayn Rand is one of America's great mysteries. She was an amphetamine-addicted author of sub-Dan Brown potboilers, who in her spare time wrote lavish torrents of praise for serial killers and the Bernie Madoff-style embezzlers of her day. She opposed democracy on the grounds that "the masses"—her readers—were "lice" and "parasites" who scarcely deserved to live. Yet she remains one of the most popular writers in the United States, still selling 800,000 books a year from beyond the grave. She regularly tops any list of books that Americans say have most influenced them. Since the great crash of 2008, her writing has had another Benzedrine rush, as Rush Limbaugh hails her as a prophetess. With her assertions that government is "evil" and selfishness is "the only virtue," she is the patron saint of the tea-partiers and the death panel doomsters. So how did this little Russian bomb of pure immorality in a black wig become an American icon?
...
She announced that the world was divided between a small minority of Supermen who are productive and "the naked, twisted, mindless figure of the human Incompetent" who, like the Leninists, try to feed off them. He is "mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned." It is evil to show kindness to these "lice": The "only virtue" is "selfishness."

She meant it. Her diaries from that time, while she worked as a receptionist and an extra, lay out the Nietzschean mentality that underpins all her later writings. The newspapers were filled for months with stories about serial killer called William Hickman, who kidnapped a 12-year-old girl called Marion Parker from her junior high school, raped her, and dismembered her body, which he sent mockingly to the police in pieces. Rand wrote great stretches of praise for him, saying he represented "the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatsoever for all that a society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul. … Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should." She called him "a brilliant, unusual, exceptional boy," shimmering with "immense, explicit egotism."
...
Rand was broken by the Bolsheviks as a girl, and she never left their bootprint behind. She believed her philosophy was Bolshevism's opposite, when in reality it was its twin. Both she and the Soviets insisted a small revolutionary elite in possession of absolute rationality must seize power and impose its vision on a malleable, imbecilic mass. The only difference was that Lenin thought the parasites to be stomped on were the rich, while Rand thought they were the poor.

I don't find it hard to understand why this happened to Rand: I feel sympathy for her, even as I know she would have spat it back into my face. What I do find incomprehensible is that there are people—large numbers of people—who see her writing not as psychopathy but as philosophy, and urge us to follow her. Why? What in American culture did she drill into? Unfortunately, neither of these equally thorough, readable books can offer much of an answer to this, the only great question about her.

Last edited by handfleisch on Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:34 am; edited 1 time in total

deanhills

I was a great fan of Ayn Rand's during my University days, and have read and reread her books. Particularly Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and We the living. I cannot recognize Ayn Rand in your quote, it just does not fit with her writings at all. For your information the following is her philosophy of life, in a nutshell:

Quote:

My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

Source: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro

I do recognize her in the above quote. The above has been her motto consistently in all of her writings.

The following quote from one of her works on "Man’s Rights,” from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal " would probably have been reason for McCarthy zealots to have persecuted her, and not to have used her as a source of justification for their crazy pursuits:

Quote:

Criminals are a small minority in any age or country. And the harm they have done to mankind is infinitesimal when compared to the horrors-the bloodshed, the wars, the persecutions, the confiscations, the famines, the enslavements, the wholesale destructions-perpetrated by mankind’s governments. Potentially, a government is the most dangerous threat to man’s rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims. When unlimited and unrestricted by individual rights, a government is men’s deadliest enemy. It is not as protection against private actions, but against governmental actions that the Bill of Rights was written.

Source: “Man’s Rights,” from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand. Copyright (c) 1946, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1966 by Ayn Rand. used by permission of Dutton Signet, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc.

liljp617

What is slate.com??

handfleisch

deanhills wrote:

So?

liljp617 wrote:

What is slate.com??

I'm not a regular reader, but Slate, along with Salon, are a couple of the more successful internet magazines, offering high-quality work by serious writers.

ocalhoun

handfleisch wrote:

deanhills wrote:

So?

So, if it is a legitimate quote, it apparently isn't a very representative one, possibly taken out of context. Not that it matters, really.

handfleisch

ocalhoun wrote:

handfleisch wrote:

deanhills wrote:

So?

So, if it is a legitimate quote, it apparently isn't a very representative one, possibly taken out of context.

Are you serious? Biographers spend years reading everything about Ayn Rand and all her works, interviewing people who knew her, researching contemporary accounts, and citing her many diary entries in praise of a demented serial killer who hacked a child to death and sent the pieces in the mail. But you think one fan's adoring view based on something read years before trumps all that.

Personally, as the review says, I think Rand deserves sympathy. But that doesn't change the facts of her life. Reminds me of that Bush staffer's infamous sneering at the "reality-based community" --it seems the far right just rejects all inconvenient truths. Okay, whatever.

ocalhoun

handfleisch wrote:

No, it just means that you have to consider both sides of the person, and that this biography may be somewhat slanted, no matter how much effort they put into it.

From an extreme libertarian viewpoint, I can see what she's talking about in complementing these serial killers, et cetera. They have achieved (for a time) absolute freedom from society's rules. That they used that freedom to harm others is reprehensible, but to be absolutely free from society is enviable at times.

Quote:

Personally, as the review says, I think Rand deserves sympathy. But that doesn't change the facts of her life. Reminds me of that Bush staffer's infamous sneering at the "reality-based community" --it seems the far right just rejects all inconvenient truths. Okay, whatever.

And the left does not? Do you really believe that?

deanhills

handfleisch wrote:

But you think one fan's adoring view based on something read years before trumps all that.

If you were referring to me, I would hardly call myself a "fan" or "adoring". My point was that I could not recognize her philosophy or writings in your quote. One finds often that "crazy people" who subscribe to "crazy organizations" or "cults" take quotes from authors out of context of what their philosophies are really about. That does not mean that the author subscribes to their "cult" at all. If you would for example attend a Tea Party of real extreme right wing people, would that then mean that you are a right winger? Or if they should quote from works by any one philosopher to justify their narrow points of view, would that necessarily make the philosopher a right winger as well?

handfleisch

deanhills wrote:

My point was that I could not recognize her philosophy or writings in your quote. One finds often that "crazy people" who subscribe to "crazy organizations" or "cults" take quotes from authors out of context of what their philosophies are really about. That does not mean that the author subscribes to their "cult" at all. If you would for example attend a Tea Party of real extreme right wing people, would that then mean that you are a right winger? Or if they should quote from works by any one philosopher to justify their narrow points of view, would that necessarily make the philosopher a right winger as well?

It's possible a superficial view her books and philosophy could be seen as simply positive, and therefore I understand how you would see some conflict between that and the facts of her life. However, as others have shown, her philosophy does fit very well with cruelty and selfishness, and it's not a big surprise that a person who exalted the strong and reproached the weak would turn out to be a bitter and deranged person.

About the cult aspect, I am not talking about any cult following after her death. During her life, it wasn't just her followers using her works to make a cult; she was the center and leader of her own abusive mini-cult.

Two different biographers working separately painted similar pictures. It's highly unlikely that they were somehow telling only one side of the story (what motive would they have for that) and only used the parts of her writings where she praised serial killers, and somehow ignored her good deeds, kind nature, and all the parts of her diary where she hopes to spread peace and love or whatever. I mean, that would be easy to expose, wouldn't it?

The sad fact is that Ayn Rand was something of a twisted and bitter person with a fairly malicious outlook, and it's very revealing that many right wingers are inspired by her.

ocalhoun

handfleisch wrote:

Two different biographers working separately painted similar pictures. It's highly unlikely that they were somehow telling only one side of the story (what motive would they have for that)

Quote:

and it's very revealing that many right wingers are inspired by her.

It's quite possible that they share your own motivation...

Anyway, I don't mind you taking pot-shots at the right, but please, don't lump 'right-wingers' and libertarians together again.

handfleisch

ocalhoun wrote:

handfleisch wrote:

Two different biographers working separately painted similar pictures. It's highly unlikely that they were somehow telling only one side of the story (what motive would they have for that)

Quote:

and it's very revealing that many right wingers are inspired by her.

It's quite possible that they share your own motivation...

You're saying two major publishing companies, two reputable writers, and the reviewer all have a motivation to write false reports on Ayn Rand? How far does this conspiracy go, and what proof do you have of it?

About my own motivation -- you're wrong again. If any progressives were out there citing Trotsky as their inspiration, I would condemn them too. Go ahead, find a progressive leader in the US comparable to Limbaugh that boasts inspiration from some twisted individual like Rand.

ocalhoun wrote:

Anyway, I don't mind you taking pot-shots at the right, but please, don't lump 'right-wingers' and libertarians together again.

Once again I must say, are you serious? I mentioned both because many Libertarians base their beliefs on her philosophy, but she is also admired by rightwing leaders like Limbaugh.

deanhills

handfleisch wrote:

If I look at the style of the article that you quoted in your lead posting, it dripped with cutting adjectives and superlatives. That is hardly proof, it is more like a creative and very biased prosaic interpretation of her political philosophy. All of Ayn Rand's writings are very simple and straightforward. I can't imagine how the rightwingers would want to use her writings for their cause, unless they are very limited in their education, and thought this was a fancy name to use. Her political philosophy just does not fit in with the rightwing philosophy. As far as I can see the rightwing philosophy is anti the current Government, but once they have their own Government in place, they would make jolly sure that everyone would be toeing the Government line. Ayn Rand was against Government and Government regulations. I would have seen her closer to liberal than "conservative right".

I can understand your point of view of her philosophy being "cruel" perhaps, although I would have used a different word, maybe "idealistic"? Although there is something good in it, i.e. people have to please themselves rather than other people. Irony of course is that if we do please ourselves, and go full out in realizing our own potential, rather than looking after other people's potential, before we have realized our own potential, then we will have a society that has people who are much more self-reliant with healthy self-esteems. She is right, Government of course does not want that kind of person. The more dependent they can get people to be, i.e. through debt and rules and regulations that rob them of their freedom the more powerful the Government will be.

ocalhoun

handfleisch wrote:

ocalhoun wrote:

handfleisch wrote:

Two different biographers working separately painted similar pictures. It's highly unlikely that they were somehow telling only one side of the story (what motive would they have for that)

Quote:

and it's very revealing that many right wingers are inspired by her.

It's quite possible that they share your own motivation...

There's no conspiracy, and the publishing companies are not involved. A writer who already is primed to pick this person to pieces (because the people the writer disagrees with like her) researches her. They find quotes where she says good things about very bad people, and focus on that, without trying to make sense of why she says such things. Once they find those quotes, they use that to justify whatever labels they want to put on her, and dismiss any of her other opinions as ravings of a mad-woman.

handfleisch wrote:

About my own motivation -- you're wrong again. If any progressives were out there citing Trotsky as their inspiration, I would condemn them too. Go ahead, find a progressive leader in the US comparable to Limbaugh that boasts inspiration from some twisted individual like Rand.

Wasn't there recently a certain scandal about a certain associate of Obama's who greatly admired a certain Chinese ruler? Wink

Or is that an inconvenient truth to be ignored?

handfleisch wrote:

ocalhoun wrote:

Anyway, I don't mind you taking pot-shots at the right, but please, don't lump 'right-wingers' and libertarians together again.

Once again I must say, are you serious? I mentioned both because many Libertarians base their beliefs on her philosophy, but she is also admired by rightwing leaders like Limbaugh.

Quote:

My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

Not too bad of a thing to base a philosophy off of. And, believe it or not, you can actually base a philosophy off what someone said and still not agree with everything about them.
For example, you can agree with her assertion that there is an objective reality, and disagree with her lauding of killers.

Voodoocat

Quote:

The sad fact is that Ayn Rand was something of a twisted and bitter person with a fairly malicious outlook

Wow! A vicious ad hominen attack launched against a dead woman. Kudos! Rolling Eyes

The humanities are full of very troubled artists: Van Gogh, Hemingway and Sylvia Plath to name a few. However, their personal demons should not in any way detract from the magnificance and importance of their work.

Next time, why not rationally discuss your disagreements with an author and avoid the childish name calling?

handfleisch

Voodoocat wrote:

Quote:

The sad fact is that Ayn Rand was something of a twisted and bitter person with a fairly malicious outlook

Wow! A vicious ad hominen attack launched against a dead woman. Kudos! :roll:

The humanities are full of very troubled artists: Van Gogh, Hemingway and Sylvia Plath to name a few. However, their personal demons should not in any way detract from the magnificance and importance of their work.

Next time, why not rationally discuss your disagreements with an author and avoid the childish name calling?

Nonsense. Rand's entire work, her "art" as you say (it was more philosophy than art) was about how we should live; that her philosophy (exalting the strong, praising the winners, Nietzschean will to power stuff) espoused in her works was shown in practice in her life (cruel and malicious) is entirely the point.

Your examples are also off base. If someone was citing Van Gogh as an example of proper ear hygiene, it would also be fair game to point out that cutting off your own ear is not exactly the best method...

Rand would laugh at your defense of her, since she scorned compassion and wimpy bothering with fairness.

Voodoocat

Quote:

Rand would laugh at your defense of her,

You obviously missed the point. I was not defending her work, I was commenting on the use of an ad hominem attack. Such attacks are easy; it takes actual skill to critique an artist's work based on the content.

I believe my comments concerning other artists are valid in this context. After all, you could replace Ayn Rand in your comment with Sylvia Plath:

Quote:

The sad fact is that Sylvia Plath was something of a twisted and bitter person with a fairly malicious outlook...

While this might be an accurate portrayal of the person, Plath's literature remains world class.

deanhills

Voodoocat wrote:

Quote:

Rand would laugh at your defense of her,

Quote:

The sad fact is that Sylvia Plath was something of a twisted and bitter person with a fairly malicious outlook...

While this might be an accurate portrayal of the person, Plath's literature remains world class.

Your comment was right on Lagoon, and exactly how it is, not only for Ayn Rand but quite a number of other artists and philosophers. The whole tone of the quote about Ayn Rand in the first posting is a viscious "attack". For me it showed a shortcoming on the part of those who made the comment along the lines of "beauty" being in the eye of the beholder.