Adam Kirsch reviews Anne Heller’s Ayn Rand and the World She Made in the NYT. As others have noted, the review contains a curious passage.
Nor would Rand, sooner than any other desert prophet, allow her message to be trifled with. When Bennett Cerf, a head of Random House, begged her to cut Galt’s speech, Rand replied with what Heller calls “a comment that became publishing legend”: “Would you cut the Bible?” One can imagine what Cerf thought — he had already told Rand plainly, “I find your political philosophy abhorrent” — but the strange thing is that Rand’s grandiosity turned out to be perfectly justified.
In fact, any editor certainly would cut the Bible, if an agent submitted it as a new work of fiction. But Cerf offered Rand an alternative: if she gave up 7 cents per copy in royalties, she could have the extra paper needed to print Galt’s oration. That she agreed is a sign of the great contradiction that haunts her writing and especially her life. Politically, Rand was committed to the idea that capitalism is the best form of social organization invented or conceivable. . . .
Yet while Rand took to wearing a dollar-sign pin to advertise her love of capitalism, Heller makes clear that the author had no real affection for dollars themselves. Giving up her royalties to preserve her vision is something that no genuine capitalist, and few popular novelists, would have done. It is the act of an intellectual, of someone who believes that ideas matter more than lucre. In fact, as Heller shows, Rand had no more reverence for the actual businessmen she met than most intellectuals do. The problem was that, according to her own theories, the executives were supposed to be as creative and admirable as any artist or thinker. They were part of the fraternity of the gifted, whose strike, in “Atlas Shrugged,” brings the world to its knees.
It would seem Mr. Kirsch does not understand Rand’s capitalist ideal and is not all that familiar with Rand’s work (perhaps beyond what he read in Heller’s book). If he’s read The Fountainhead, he clearly missed the essential features of Howard Roark’s character and the underlying egoism driving all of Rand’s heroes. Don’t get me wrong, there’s plenty to criticize about Rand and her work — unlike some libertarians, I was never all that enamored with Rand or her ideas — but this alleged “contradiction” is not one of them.
PersonFromPorlock says:
‘Capitalistic’ = ‘crass’ is an old, old confusion. Often among capitalists themselves, unfortunately. PersonFromPorlock(Quote)
drunkdriver says:
He also overlooks the fact that it might have turned out to be a shrewd business move– the speech is central to the book, and last I checked that book sold pretty well. She might have done alright with the dollars after all. drunkdriver(Quote)
Nate says:
Adam Kirsch also overlooks the fact that the standard model for falling in love with Ayn Rand’s books is for one to be a relatively privileged white male from the ages of 18–26, have little understanding of what it’s like to be poor or not middle to upper-middle class, have little understanding of economics in general, and be easily susceptible to massively ignorant libertarian platitudes, like foolish cult members. Nate(Quote)
yankee says:
I think it’s clear that Kirsch is writing about the Rand of Atlas Shrugged, not the Rand of The Fountainhead. Though Rand would have denied it, The Fountainhead is a much more Nietzschean work than Atlas. Caring about whether anybody else wants to buy your product is condemned; the right of the ubermensch to destroy other people’s property for daring to tamper with his artistic vision is affirmed.
Atlas’s vision of a bilateral exchange of value is a dramatic contrast with The Fountainhead’s vision of a Great Man to whom participation in the market is at best a crass distraction. yankee(Quote)
yankee says:
Is it remotely plausible that Atlas would have lost sales volume if the speech had been only 40 pages rather than 70? Lots of readers skip the speech anyway. yankee(Quote)
MathProfinCA says:
What about the “great contradiction” of an editor charging his author 7 cents per copy in royalties to publish a “capitalist” philosophy the editor himself finds “abhorrent” ? MathProfinCA(Quote)
alkali says:
What about the “great contradiction” of an editor charging his author 7 cents per copy in royalties to publish a “capitalist” philosophy the editor himself finds “abhorrent” ?
Just further support for Rand’s famous dictum, “The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.” (Or maybe it was someone else that said that; I forget.) alkali(Quote)
Laura(southernxyl) says:
I read Atlas Shrugged a few times and never made it past the first couple of paragraphs of that speech. I thought, after all these hundreds of pages that I’ve read so far, if you haven’t made your point by now it’s too late.
But I think the OP is right and there is no contradiction. Rand wasn’t a dollar-worshipper, she did value ideas more. And she thought Atlas Shrugged was an unparalleled masterpiece, as a literary work and as a vehicle for her philosophy. Getting her ideas out there was more important to her than the money she would make from book sales. Laura(southernxyl)(Quote)
Javert says:
Rand replied with what Heller calls “a comment that became publishing legend”: “Would you cut the Bible?”
Heller and the NYT need to do some fact checking. When asked about the alleged quote, Rand replied: “I never said that. The Bible does need cutting.” Javert(Quote)
jasmindad says:
Actually, it was her compatriot, Lenin, who said that. jasmindad(Quote)
Can't find a good name says:
Nate: How does your characterization of Rand’s followers contradict anything Adam Kirsch wrote? Can’t find a good name(Quote)
Brian Garst says:
Why do so many leftists insist on not understanding that nothing about capitalism compels individuals to place maximizing money or wealth above other preferences? Arguably the most significant feature of capitalism is that it lets the individual choose what is important to them. They might as well ask whether it’s compatible with a belief in capitalism to choose low-risk, low-reward investments. Brian Garst(Quote)
RowerinVA says:
This is obviously the correct response. The publisher has been proven wrong, and Rand correct, by the market. In capitalist terms, Rand simply had a different view of the “investment” (pages needed) than her business partner. RowerinVA(Quote)
The Unbeliever says:
That should be easy to test. Sell an “Atlas Shrugged Abridged version”, with the whole speech replaced by a one page narrative summary of Galt’s radio address. The Unbeliever(Quote)
Soronel Haetir says:
The Bible would be easy to cut, get rid of all the “begat“s and you would have a good start. Soronel Haetir(Quote)
DJR says:
If Rand hadn’t been hitting the reader over the head with Galt’s thesis on every page of the book, perhaps the radio address would have been worth it. By the time you get to it, there has been so much sermonizing that the only people who need to read the speech are those already converted, who will enjoy the satisfaction of being told what by that time they want to hear or the exceedingly dull-witted, who need to be hit even harder over the head with the message. DJR(Quote)
ChrisTS says:
I do not think this is an exclusively ‘leftist’ idea. Rather, there is a failure to distinguish 2 usages of ‘capitalism’ and ‘capitalist.’ One does suggest that the ‘bottom line’ is all that matters. The other suggests that a market economy is best, whatever one’s individual ends. ChrisTS(Quote)
American Psikhushka says:
Nate–
Adam Kirsch also overlooks the fact that the standard model for falling in love with Ayn Rand’s books is for one to be a relatively privileged white male from the ages of 18–26, have little understanding of what it’s like to be poor or not middle to upper-middle class, have little understanding of economics in general, and be easily susceptible to massively ignorant libertarian platitudes, like foolish cult members.
Ah, the old conceit that anyone who is a libertarian is white, young, male, and affluent. If you can’t properly address the ideas, attack the identity of the speaker.(I won’t note the irony that the writer being discussed was a middle-aged woman at the time of writing whose family was victimized by a totalitarian communist government.)
And it’s interesting that you mention an understanding of economics. Many libertarian and Austrian economists predicted the recent economic hardships while it was a surprise to nearly all mainstream economists. Perhaps it’s not libertarians that have “little understanding of economics in general”. American Psikhushka(Quote)
American Psikhushka says:
Disclaimer: Have yet to read Rand. American Psikhushka(Quote)
A. Zarkov says:
I think Bennett Cerf gave Rand good advice. While I haven’t read Atlas Shrugged, my daughter has, and she recommends skipping the Galt speech completely as it’s insufferable and adds little. Mind you she did like the book on the whole apart from the speech. I tried to read AS, but gave up because the paperback version has very small print. While I can focus, it’s a bit of a strain. Besides I like short books– actually I like short everything except short women. I find most written material to be too long, especially legal opinions. In the words of the great Calvin Coolidge,
A. Zarkov(Quote)
Glenn Bowen says:
While reading the quote in the original, and now here, my initial reaction was, and is, “Sez who?”
That’s quite a blanket Kirsch throws on the subject, and quite a leap of interpretation as he wasn’t in the room with Rand to quiz her on it... but then the SOB wasn’t born yet. Glenn Bowen(Quote)
Anonymous says:
I don’t see what the difference is. The “bottom line” depends on how you defined one’s own “individual ends.”
What compulsory-collectivists are really doing is assuming that everyone’s “bottom line” must be the same, because that assumption is the basis for their entire philosophies. They take it to the self-inflicted extremes wherein the fact that goals should enforced by the state make enforcing property rights oppression. It’s not surprising that such thought exists. It’s surprising people think that they gain by beheading the goose to redistribute its eyeballs. Anonymous(Quote)
ArthurKirkland says:
More insight than one could find in 900 pages of Rand’s work. Ayn Rand was the Talking Heads of novelists.
And, yes, the Bible could benefit from some pruning. ArthurKirkland(Quote)
Mark N. says:
Unfortunately, it’s a viewpoint that I’ve found fairly prevalent on all parts of the political spectrum. If anything, it’s more prominent among some “business conservatives” than among leftists: if you claim you turned down a higher-paying job for a lower-paying one that you personally liked more, some people on the business-right will regard you as if you’re some kind of communist hippie. Mark N.(Quote)
josh bornstein says:
How do Rand’s other books compare to “Atlas Shrugged” in terms of readability or quality (Yes, I know that’s subjective.)? I found AS simply unreadable, with dreadful writing (which is not to be confused with the quality of her political or philosophical ideas), and it’s one of the few books I picked up in my lifetime that I just could not get through.
But if her writing is better in one of her other works, I’d be happy to spend some hours giving that one a try. josh bornstein(Quote)
Allan Walstad says:
Well, let’s see: I was in my mid-30s when I discovered Atlas Shrugged. I was then, as now, making rather less than average, especially for someone with education through Ph.D. My dad was a self-employed scrap metal dealer who worked 6+ days a week in dirty and dangerous conditions to keep us in the middle class and put me through college, after which I lived on a teaching assistantship through 6 years of grad school. I’m fairly well-read in economics and generally known as someone who rather stubbornly thinks for himself. But Nate, I’m sure you must be acquainted with a statistically valid cross-section of people who were captivated by Rand’s writing, on which to base your “standard model.”
Or are you perhaps a clueless blow-hard? Just wondering. Allan Walstad(Quote)
Appalled says:
The Fountainhead is much better, and much shorter. I think that it’s better written, too. By the time she wrote AS, she had surrounded herself with the sycophants in “the collective” and was incapable of listening to criticism. I don’t think that she was ever good at taking criticism, but she simply refused to do so in her later life. Some people like We the Living better, but I thought that it was mediocre. Also, you don’t get much sense of Rand’s later views from it, if that’s what you’re interested in. Appalled(Quote)
Mark Field says:
In my own experience, and in that of others I know, people tend to prefer the first book of Rand’s that they read, regardless which one it is. Thus, those who read AS first like it better, those who read TF better like it better, etc. Mark Field(Quote)
Jimbino says:
A pure capitalist wouldn’t bother writing anything that takes time away from managing his money, just as a savvy investor wouldn’t spend time giving away investment advice on the radio. The only folks who give such advice or make their living investing other people’s money for a fee are those from the bottom of the investment barrel.
Unless they are intellectuals too, of course. Jimbino(Quote)
uh_clem says:
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: “The Lord of the Rings” and “Atlas Shrugged.” One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves hobbits, elves, and wizards.
(unfortunately not original, and I’m unsure of the author) uh_clem(Quote)
Dan M. says:
Some people don’t seem to understand that if you extend the idea that it’s un-capitalist to forgo money in exchange for the advancement of your ideas, it must be un-capitalist to actually spend money on anything. Dan M.(Quote)
Laura(southernxyl) says:
Yeah.
I read TF first. It annoyed me much, much more than AS did.
Even though there’s much to argue with in Rand’s fictional universe, I can’t say I wasn’t influenced by her stuff. I remember griping about something in front of my daughter. Some people were caught with their hands in the cookie jar and were excusing what they had done with a lot of self-serving exculpatory nonsense about how they were really trying to accomplish this or that worthy thing and were misunderstood. I said that, bottom line, they had done what they wanted to do, period. Then I caught myself and told my daughter that there is nothing wrong with doing something because you want to do it, even if that is the sole reason why you are doing it. The problem is when what you want to do is wrong, and you do that thing knowing you shouldn’t, and then make excuses about why you did it. After I thought about that, I thought it must have been an echo from Rand’s writings. Laura(southernxyl)(Quote)
Tweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » The Non-Contradiction of Rand’s Capitalism -- Topsy.com says:
newshutz says:
many on the “business-right” are mercantilist and not supporters of capitalism.
Statists wear many costumes. newshutz(Quote)
ArrowSmith says:
I’m a proud Randroid, and I’ve only read some of her essays. Never read “Fountainhead” or “Atlas Shrugged”. People tell me they’re a boring read. ArrowSmith(Quote)
ArrowSmith says:
If by “real world” you mean a statist hell made by people like you — then yeah it would help a person to come to grips with THAT awful reality as early as possible. Thanks for nothing. ArrowSmith(Quote)
Sasha Volokh says:
Josh: I wasn’t expecting to like Atlas Shrugged, because by the time I read it, I had long since decided that I disagreed with every single axiom of Objectivism, and I found the Standard Objectivist Prose Style turgid. Nonetheless, I actually enjoyed Atlas Shrugged a lot, which surprised me.
Nonetheless, We the Living (a much earlier work) is very different in style, and, if I recall correctly, has much less sermonizing. One thing that’s _very_ short and _very_ different is Anthem, which is written in an allegorical style. Sasha Volokh(Quote)
Brian says:
I’ve learned to grade on a curve with regard to MSM commentary touching on Ayn Rand. Because Kirsch wasn’t too shrill with his insults and factual errors, and because he was only mildly condescending toward Rand, he rates a B+. In any case, Kirsch’s review will bring more readers to what looks to be a couple interesting biographies of Rand, in contrast to adulation of many of her supporters, and the willful ignorance of many of her detractors. Brian(Quote)
Brian says:
Reading the prior comments, I see some talk about Rand’s 1st full-length novel (set in Communist Russia) We the Living. Some of you might be interested to know that the DVD of the movie We the Living (produced in the 40’s in Mussolini’s Italy!) has recently been released. It’s a wonderful movie; I saw in on VHS something like 18 years ago now. It’s so powerful yet without heaviness or pretense; I feel confident that even those who don’t particularly like Ayn Rand’s works would enjoy it.
It feels tacky to leave commercial links; those interested can Google it within a minute. Brian(Quote)
Tweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » The Non-Contradiction of Rand’s Capitalism -- Topsy.com says:
Nate says:
I’m not saying that my standard model covers all cases, but it covers most. Nate(Quote)
Instapundit » Blog Archive » EVERYBODY’S PILING ON ADAM KIRSCH: Now it’s Jonathan Adler: “t would seem Mr. Kirsch does not unde… says:
ChrisTS says:
Anonymous:
Yes, it would turn on definition. Most people think ‘the bottom line’ refers to profit maximization. ChrisTS(Quote)
The False God says:
Many people ignore her basic principle, that a man has the right to the sweat of his own labors, the result of his own intellect, and that has the right to do what he wants with his own mind, body, property, and dreams. In her view, a man should be able to take his billion-dollar company and run it into the ground if he chooses to, so long as he has no contractual obligations that he, with his own hand, has signed on to. He has no obligation to anyone or anything that he has not bound himself to willingly. The results don’t matter: anyone that is bound to him is bound by their choice, and are owed nothing but what is in their contract. His company is not a jobs farm, it is not a pillar of some “nation’s” economy, and it is certainly not whatever outsiders think it should be.
No matter the indirect harm, it should be his choice to put his work to the torch. Nobody else has a given right to it. That it would be insane to do it is no matter. Because it is insane, nobody would do something like that. But saying that you would, by law, seek to disallow it is a conceit which defines the disregard for the sanctity of individual property that so many people have.
They think they know what to do with your ideas and property better than you do, so they can claim it if it’s “for the good.” And that is wrong. The False God(Quote)
Jim Treacher says:
Exactly. What good are royalties if you don’t sell copies? And since when are art and commerce mutually exclusive? Jim Treacher(Quote)
zuch says:
Who cares if Rand contradicts herself? She never made any sense to begin with.
Sorry to break it to all you Libertarians/Objectivists™ out there. Time to get a life.
Cheers, zuch(Quote)
J says:
I think Rand would say that the politicians should just go home.
Let small business do what we know how to do. We’ll be OK. Americans are smart and work hard. We just need the politicians to get out of the way. J(Quote)
The False God says:
The thing is that there is no contradiction. Capitalism, and the money that flows through it, are means to an end. For some people, having money might be the end itself. Others accrue it for wholly human reasons: power, prestige, material possessions, charity, etc. Perhaps, in her mind, she simply chose getting her book out, her ideas out, as they were, instead of altering it to make more money from the sales. Her end, her choice, is preserved. Weighing money vs. the “purity” of her work, she chose one over the other.
As was her choice to make, which is the core of her message.
No contradiction. The False God(Quote)
Jimmy says:
Surprise surprise, a commie c-u-n-t who couldn’t think her way out of a paper bag and works for the NYT. Jimmy(Quote)
DJR says:
False god:
A well-written comment: I couldn’t figure out at first whether you were criticizing Rand’s “basic principle” or endorsing it. This is probably not the place to start this debate, but what a singularly depressing view of the world. DJR(Quote)
Steve in Philly says:
I cannot think of another contemporary author who has had more venom thrown at her than Ayn Rand. She’s a bad writer, her philosophy is juvenile crap, yadda yadda yadda. And yet 50 years and more since the publication of her major works, she is still the subject of innumerable articles, lectures, and commentary. Disagree with her ideas, and call her names if you want, but the fact that her influence only continues to grow even today is irrefutable evidence that she was a great author and philosopher. If all the derogatory remarks were true she would vanished from public discourse long ago. For those of you who have not yet read her, I cannot emphasize enough the value that can be gained from her ideas, and I strongly recommend you read her and decide for yourself what the truth of Ayn Rand is. Steve in Philly(Quote)
AST says:
Heller shows that? Anybody who’s read anything by Rand gets a pretty good idea of her contempt for businessmen motivated only by money. What she has reverence for is freedom and will, the right to do things one’s own way without being dictated to by government or society. The connection between that and big bucks is somewhat dubious. Her whole story was about a productive and wealthy capitalist turning his back on it because of government interference. And his insistence on his artistic vision sure didn’t make Howard Roark a great financial success.
While Rand promoted laissez faire capitalism, it wasn’t for the reasons laid out by Hayek, von Mises or Friedman, but we didn’t really need Heller’s book to tell us that, did we? AST(Quote)
Jason Coleman says:
So much misunderstanding here. Misunderstandings of Rand, Shrugged, capitalists, capitalism, etc.
Let’s just question:
Would a capitalist rather sell 900 consumable products for $1, or would he rather sell 1 unit for $1000. If you understand both capitalists and capitalism you’ll say that he wants to sell the 900 for less. If you don’t understand capitalists you’ll say he wants the 1.
The capitalist understands that by choosing lower margin and higher volume, he’ll make more money over time. Whereas, he might make a higher margin on the single shot, he won’t have as much return volume, if he has any at all.
Rand knew what she was doing, the success of her works show that. To say she was a poor capitalist is a foolish statement. Jason Coleman(Quote)
Jake says:
Who cares if Rand contradicts herself? She never made any sense to begin with.
Sorry to break it to all you Libertarians/Objectivists™ out there. Time to get a life.
Yeah, I understand. It can be kind of hard to understand on your first go round. Jake(Quote)
yankee says:
Well, Rand would have rejected most of those as legitimate ends. Prestige wrongfully elevates the approval of others into an end in itself (the “second-hander”); power is either the power of the looter or suffers from the same second-handedness problem; charity is a sign of impermissible altruism or self-sacrifice. yankee(Quote)
gus3 says:
The most clear-minded Libertarian I’ve ever known was of African descent, and had a disadvantaged childhood in Ohio. The appeal of Libertarianism solely to young while males is a myth.
As for AS, if one treats the “This is John Galt” speech as a separate work, it’s a shining city-on-a-hill against all collectivist thought. I think it was composed thus, and shoe-horned into “Atlas Shrugged”. gus3(Quote)
Fen says:
Nate: the standard model for falling in love with Ayn Rand’s books is for one to be a relatively privileged white male from the ages of 18–26
Oh go pound sand, racist pig.
“the standard model for the Left is to make it personal. Because thats all they’ve got” Fen(Quote)
Fen says:
ArrowSmith: One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession
I agree the Socialism is a childish fantasy. Fortunately, most of us grow out of it. Fen(Quote)
Can't find a good name says:
Jimmy: Not only am I unimpressed by your language, I am not sure you even know the name and sex of the person you are referring to. Hint: See the first three words of the original post. Can’t find a good name(Quote)
Duffy Pratt says:
Does the same go for Marx? Duffy Pratt(Quote)
Flounder says:
I just finished “Atlas Shrugged” and I’ll say one thing for sure: it is a VERY long book. My biggest problem with the book is how every conversation turns into some philosophical lecture. And yes, Galt’s radio speech is loooooonnng! That being said, I loved it. Francisco’s speech about money and Galt’s first speech about the strike should be required reading.
Galt’s point about how the code of the looter/moocher is kept in existence by the virtue of it’s saints but survives by the grace of it’s sinners is dead on. If that doesn’t make sense to you, read the book. If you disagree, then you’re one of THEM! Flounder(Quote)
Paul R says:
Galt’s speech and the other speeches in the book are the only reason the book has any lasting appeal whatever. Without them, it would not be possible to understand the motivations of the protagonists. Some people fail at reading comprehension, but enough succeed to keep interest in Rand’s thought growing.
Rand would never use those words but there is a shred of truth to that comment. The proper versions of those ideas are independence, esteem (as justice) from self and others, personal enjoyment and even luxury, generosity as justice to the innocent and unfortunate. Paul R(Quote)
ArthurKirkland says:
What about L. Ron Hubbard? ArthurKirkland(Quote)
Ricardo says:
How many people who matter are influenced by her work? How many Fortune 500 CEOs, politicians, intellectuals, etc.? It’s telling that when Newsweek wanted someone to right about Ayn Rand’s influence, they chose Mark “Appalachian Trail” Sanford in this article. And he admits the philosophy is too rigid for him. Just as Alan Greenspan had a falling out with Rand’s inner circle. Ricardo(Quote)
Warren Bonesteel says:
“Atlas Shrugged” is an explicative paen for another literary masterpiece. The first phrase that pops to mind from that masterpiece, is , “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
If you don’t understand the Declaration of Independence, you can never understand “Atlas Shrugged,” and vice-versa. Warren Bonesteel(Quote)
Flounder says:
Who is John Galt? Flounder(Quote)
Robert says:
I discovered Ayn Rand at 22, had no money and struggling to pay bills and buy groceries and I’m Hispanic/Irish.
Sorry, I didn’t realize the club was somehow exclusive. I shall burn my membership card on the morrow!
Oh, of course. Robert(Quote)
Chris R says:
Another clueless nitwit. I first read Atlas when I was 35, my parents never made more than $27,000 a year combined (usually less) and I have a greater understanding of economics than you do simply because I see the wisdom of Rand’s pro-capitalist vision.
I am also not a libertarian. Chris R(Quote)
Tristan Yates says:
Bottom line is people on the left have dismissed Ayn Rand and think we all should too. This is just one of numerous slanted articles I’ve read, most having more to do with her personality or personal life than with her ideas. If her ideas are discussed, they’re taken to extremes, and then dismissed as idealistic.
Sorry NYT, I think for myself, and I like Ayn Rand and anyone else who can make a case for that economic freedoms go hand in hand with social freedoms. Yes I know the real world is messier than a stylized allegorical novel. But I’m sick of legalized theft disguised as fairness and social justice. Democracy does have a big flaw in that the majority can oppress the minority. That’s why we have a Republic, but its up for us to keep it. Tristan Yates(Quote)
PeterM says:
Kirsch’s review is that of an intellectual lightweight. It’s taken almost straight out of the liberal/conservative “seminar book” on Rand that’s been circulating for years. The review demonstrates that either Kirsch hasn’t read Rand or that he’s a fool or both. In the last year there have been dozens of book reviews and articles on Rand and they all basically say the same silly things about Rand. The only cult of personality around Objectivism is the cult of those who hate Rand.
Notice that Kirsch’s article say virtually nothing about Rand’s ideas. In the same issue of the NYTs there is a book review of two new biographies of John Maynard Keynes and they’re all about Keynes’s ideas.
What we need is a discussion of Ayn Rand’s ideas. PeterM(Quote)
John C. Randolph says:
Wow, Nate! I’ll bet that snotty condescension makes the undergrad girls just weak in their knees, doesn’t it?
Speaking of foolish cult members, how’s Hopey McChange working out? I notice that the left-wing outrage over the war and the patriot act seem to have evaporated despite his utter failure to do a goddamned thing to try to step back from any of the previous administration’s mistakes.
–jcr John C. Randolph(Quote)
John C. Randolph says:
For that matter, the writer in question wasn’t a libertarian. She was rather hostile to libertarians, in fact.
–jcr John C. Randolph(Quote)
Donald says:
I read Atlas shrugged when I was 28 years old. When I finished it, I went in quit my job, took a full commission job selling computers and never looked back. I now do something completely different, but I own the company and all decisions and actions of it derive from my mind. I love the power, and I love the responsibility.
This book did more for me than any other thing I’ve ever done. I am white, was not rich and came from a poor non-elite background.
Snipe all you want loser, anti-capitalists. Your jealous. You’re Ayn Rand’s mind, and of the positive deeds created by this creature of “greed”. Donald(Quote)
Donald says:
That should be “you’re envious of Ayn Rand’s mind...) Donald(Quote)
Fen says:
Snipe all you want loser, anti-capitalists. You’re jealous.
They’re not just jealous, they’re greedy. They want your stuff, and they want it for nothing. Fen(Quote)
Bartleby says:
I always thought that Galt’s speech and D’Anconia’s homily about the true meaning of money were useful as “tear-offs”: portable and quotable sections of the enormous book that distilled much of the underlying philosophy. I find that when I am motivated to re-read parts of “Atlas Shrugged”, I go back to those two passages, and I did not read the Galt speech through on my first reading. Bartleby(Quote)
JFP says:
Nate: “Adam Kirsch also overlooks the fact that the standard model for falling in love with Ayn Rand’s books is for one to be a relatively privileged white male from the ages of 18–26, have little understanding of what it’s like to be poor or not middle to upper-middle class, have little understanding of economics in general, and be easily susceptible to massively ignorant libertarian platitudes, like foolish cult members.”
Nate, I’m not a libertarian, but this is fallacious. Exactly what sort of fallacy it is I leave for others to determine (ad hominem or genetic or maybe both). But if you’re going to use it, I would say the same thing (with some small changes) is true of the average environmentalist. Think about the environmentalists and the loggers. And riding a bike and using mass transit can seem soooooo virtuous, until you actually have to do them. I’m from a lower-middle-class background, and I spent years in poverty as a grad student. I had to ride a bike or take a bus. Riding a bike in the rain and snow is no fun at all. Using mass transit was horrible. I’m glad I’m now wealthy enough for a car. JFP(Quote)
Allan Walstad says:
Good luck with that, Zuch. Allan Walstad(Quote)
Manju says:
It should be noted that Rand is hugely popular in India, where decades of oppression under fabian socialism makes her captialism-as-liberation philolosphy quite relevant. Manju(Quote)
Anonymous says:
Exactly, which indicates they have no familiarity with economic scholarship, which mostly puts “utility,” the personal metric of happiness, has each actor’s assumed goal. Of course, in the simplest models “more is better,” so it’s assumed that maximum revenue or profit is synonymous with utility. But account for distortions from a producer’s size or marketing considerations or externalities or taxes and everything changes. Anonymous(Quote)
Laura(southernxyl) says:
Seems to me there’s a big difference between:
“I looked at Rand’s writings and see some valid points she’s made. I definitely see what the appeal might be to some people. But after careful thought, to me the negatives outweigh the positives, so I can’t sign on.”
and
“People who like Rand are typically (some undesirable subgroup, why the subgroup is undesirable isn’t really explained).”
Both reject the philosophy, but the first line of reasoning strikes me as years ahead in maturity and credibility. Laura(southernxyl)(Quote)
zuch says:
Jason Coleman:
Oh, piffle. Choosing the latter strategy, he still has 899 potential customers out there. ;-)
Cheers, zuch(Quote)
zuch says:
Further to Jason’s statements, one of the most significant developments recently (and one honoured by the Nobel economics prize) has been the recognition that markets are actually far from rational ... as if we needed a reminder of this these days.
Cheers, zuch(Quote)
Mark says:
Rand’s point was simple and beautiful and it explains why both leftists and conservatives hate her so.
Does your life belong to you or does it belong to others?
Leftists want 50%+ of your earnings, mandatory gun control, mandatory health insurance, mandatory everything.
Conservatives want to control what drugs you use, what kind of sex you have, whether you abort after sex, etc.
Young people reading that their lives belong to them alone, and that government coercion is immoral is invigorating liberating to them and treasonous to anyone in power on either side of the aisle. Mark(Quote)
Mark says:
About We the Living, Mussolini supported making the movie when he heard it was ant-Communist, but when he saw it and realized it was also anti-government, he had all copies destroyed. One hidden copy surfaced in the 1980s and was either dubbed or subtitled into English (I forget).
If you loved TF and AS, be forewarned...
[spoiler alert]
It is a tear-jerker that does not leave you uplifted. After seeing it at a theatre I had to run out and get a copy of the book to be sure she really ended it that way. Mark(Quote)
zuch says:
Mark:
Ayn Rand could have put it more pithily then, and saved all you folks that lost time slogging through Atlas Shrugged. Two words (although there might be copyright issues) very popular with kids for some reason: “No Rulz!!!”
Do I have that right?
Cheers, zuch(Quote)
James T. Carrington says:
She’s no fun; I prefer Allister Crowley’s version better — ‘Do what thou wilt’ shall be the whole of the law. James T. Carrington(Quote)
Jim Treacher says:
No. Jim Treacher(Quote)
Micha Elyi says:
“Capitalism” is a term popularized by Karl Marx in order to disparage what Adam Smith had identified as “the system of natural liberty.” Of course the Marxian term confuses people, especially leftists; that was Marx’s intention.
Substitute Smith’s phrase for Marx’s word and just about all the confusion melts away. Micha Elyi(Quote)
Mark Field says:
Do you have a cite for this claim? Cuz Wikipedia says:
“The initial usage of the term capitalism in its modern sense has been attributed to Louis Blanc in 1850 and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1861. Marx and Engels referred to the capitalistic system (kapitalistisches System) and to the capitalist mode of production (kapitalistische Produktionsform) in Das Kapital (1867). The use of the word “capitalism” in reference to an economic system appears twice in Volume I of Das Kapital, p. 124 (German edition), and in Theories of Surplus Value, tome II, p. 493 (German edition). Marx did not extensively use the term.”
The term “capitalist” was used extensively for a long time before Marx (he likely got it from Ricardo, who used it often). Mark Field(Quote)
ChrisTS says:
Yes and no: like Rand, they both have their following. Also like Rand, Hubbard was not a philosopher. ChrisTS(Quote)
ArrowSmith says:
If you think capitalism is about “no rulez man” then you understand nothing about it or you DO understand and want to LIE to undermine it. ArrowSmith(Quote)
elcapt says:
So I take it you’ve read none of Rand’s work, then? In Atlas Shrugged, John Galt was an orphan, Hank Rearden is in his 40s when he meets Dagny Taggart, James Taggart — her brother — is one of the biggest villains and is of the wealthy Taggart family. Rand leaves her harshest words for the heirs to fortunes who rent-seek and squander (if one bothers to read her nonfiction work, one will note that she is big on the idea that the only man fit to inherit wealth is the man who does not need it, also included in John Galt’s speech that none of the posters have bothered to read but feel confident in critiquing). Dagny did have her first affair with Francisco, a childhood friend who is indeed wealthy, but he’s also Chilean ie not white. Raggnar Dannskjold is indeed young, wealthy and white, but he is a relatively minor character.
In The Fountainhead, Howard Roark is an orphan and is kicked out of Architectural School. Also of note — Dominique Francon is the only woman who finds him attractive. Even though he needs the money, he will not make alterations to a design and is forced to go work in a rock quarry and is never wealthy. Gayle Wynand, the powerful publisher, is also born extremely poor and uses his young life in the ghetto as motivation to work hard.
I don’t care who has or hasn’t read the books or who does or doesn’t like Rand — at least have the intellectual honesty to familiarize yourself with a writer’s work before going about bashing it and the people who do like it. Did no one learn a lesson from Whittaker Chambers’s infamous hitpiece-review of Atlas Shrugged, a review written by a man who — like many commenters here — did not bother to actually read the book. elcapt(Quote)
vonneumann says:
Ayn Rand’s exchange of pages in lieu of dollars is just like Dagny Taggert’s exchange of a diamond bracelet for one made of Reardon metal. “... money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but will not provide you with desires.” vonneumann(Quote)
mattski says:
On the contrary, don’t let zuch’s inimitable style throw you. If you stick around for a while you’ll find he rarely says anything without a sound basis.
Indeed, I don’t think you’ve appreciated the subtlety of his point here. Libertarians are famous for carrying on about “liberty.” (Big surprise!) But there is a fundamental tension between freedom and law. And laws are the rules, and without them there is no such thing as civil society. If you haven’t grappled with this basic tension then it is you who lacks understanding. mattski(Quote)
loki13 says:
mattski is exactly right.
You know, you might think that someone, anyone, would’ve written about the tradeoffs between personal liberty and the need for society (or, gosh, government). Anyone?
And you’d think that other (such as Crowley) would have been on to the whole “me, myself and I” theories before Rand. In fact, it might even have a long pedigree.
But it’s so much more fun to pretend these things don’t exist! For example, it is an intolerable BURDEN for the state to demand that I testify at a trial. But should I need witnesses to help my company prove its case for fraud and collect what is rightfully MINE, then the rule of law will be at my side. It is an abomination that the state has any regulations that affect my business, but when the state’s infrastructure (highways, internet developed through DARPA etc.) are used, it just my wit and wiles helping out with commerce.
And so on. Rand provides easy, obvious solutions to complex problems, which are always in high demand. To the extent that they have inspired people to “be all they can be” (not that anyone should ever serve the state!) I think it is a good thing. But when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. loki13(Quote)
Paul R says:
This is such bullshit. Freedom does require law, Rand wrote about that extensively and it is why Rand had such scorn and contempt for libertarians. Paul R(Quote)
ArrowSmith says:
Maybe you are talking about people who call themselves libertarians, but are really anarchists. True libertarians believe in a framework of law that provides for enforcement of contracts and civil redress. Stop lying about libertarianism. ArrowSmith(Quote)
Mark M. says:
It just goes to show how mediocre most leftist thinking is. Capitalism is the right to determine for oneself what constitutes value, the right to create, barter, or buy it, and finally the right to control it and dispose of it as one wishes. (Did this guy even bother to watch The Fountainhead?)
Only someone who conflated capitalism with the Ferengi ethic of Deep Space 9 would think it is about maximizing profit. (Why do I strongly suspect that this IS in fact the basis for Adam Kirsh’s understanding?)
Anyways, I got as far as where he suggested that some Rand detractor’s biography was “far more interesting than any of her books” before I rolled my eyes and hit the back button. Mark M.(Quote)
ArrowSmith says:
Most people have been brainwashed to think that capitalism = multinational corporations. They can’t seem to grasp that capitalism can start out as a lemonade stand. There is an entire spectrum of capitalism from a sole proprietership to a General Electric. Maybe we need to break up the very large corporations as they dont’ seem to work to well beyond a certain size, and they exert too much political influence compared to small businesses. But that’s a reform issue for those that believe in capitalism. The socialists would simply do away with it all and go with the Soviet model. ArrowSmith(Quote)