Mark M.: 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.

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.

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.

mattski: 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.

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.

loki13 Rand provides easy, obvious solutions to complex problems, which are always in high demand.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

zuch: 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.

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.

ArthurKirkland: ChrisTS

Yes and no: like Rand, they both have their following. Also like Rand, Hubbard was not a philosopher.

“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.

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).

Brian Garst: 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.

“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.

zuch: Do I have that right?

No.

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.

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,

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.

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.

Cheers,

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.

Oh, piffle. Choosing the latter strategy, he still has 899 potential customers out there. ;-)

Cheers,

“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.

ChrisTS: Yes, it would turn on definition. Most people think ‘the bottom line’ refers to profit maximization.

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.

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

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.

Time to get a life.

Good luck with that, Zuch.

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.

They’re not just jealous, they’re greedy. They want your stuff, and they want it for nothing.

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”.

American Psikhushka: 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

For that matter, the writer in question wasn’t a libertarian. She was rather hostile to libertarians, in fact.

-jcr

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

Nate says:

I’m not saying that my standard model covers all cases, but it covers most.

Oh, of course.