Sometime in the 1980s, my cousin Marc gave me a book called It Usually Begins With Ayn Rand, by Jerome Tuccille. At the time in spoke to me: an adolescent enamored by Rand's fiction and philosophy, yet ready for something more. For the author and for my cousin, the adult version of Rand's ideas could be found in the Libertarian Party.
I write "adult version," because in some sense I understood myself as having outgrown what I came to see as Rand's simplistic philosophy. In college in the late 1980s, I first turned to Libertarianism and then became a Progressive. And thus I am amazed at her continued and even revitalized place in our culture. Did we not all outgrow her? Apparently not.
Though Rand, who passed away in 1982, never quite fell from popularity, her name has been invoked with increasing frequency over the last two or three years -- both by anti-Obama protestors and cable television talking heads. About a year and a half ago, two new biographies of her came out, one of which was featured on the cover of the Book Review section of The New York Times. And now we have the recently released first part of a projected three-part film adaptation of Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged. And events such as Ron Paul's declaration of his Presidential candidacy recall to me my years as a fan of Rand's.
Does Ayn Rand really have much to say to us today? As a former admirer, I can share my reflections.
Like a fair number of adolescents, I discovered The Fountainhead, a novel that swept me away, and then the massive Atlas Shrugged. Rand created powerful, strong, proud characters. No doubt her stories -- of bold and smart individualists, persevering against weaker people trying to sap their creativity -- gave hope to many young boys (and some girls) trying to assert themselves and to find certainty in an often alienating world.
And I fell for it: a simplistic, black and white view of the world, an unambiguous morality rooted in individualism. I arrived in Boston for college and looking for that next step, I reached out to actual Libertarians, members of a political group seeking a third party presence in government, in order to minimize that very government.
Within months, however, my world was thrown into chaos. This was in large part due to a seminar in Anthropology and Comparative Religion. I learned about other cultures and other ways of thinking, about language and meaning. I was thrust outside of my own narrow perspective, and suddenly I found I could no longer articulate a compelling defense of Libertarianism or Randian Objectivism. I had entered university as an Objectivist and become transformed into a Cultural Relativist.
It took a few years, but in time I abandoned that Cultural Relativism, though by no means the broad perspective it gave me. Nor did I abandon the Progressive politics, for that matter.
As for Libertarianism, I want to make clear that although I no longer espouse it, I do think it has its merits and can make an important contribution to our political culture. Libertarianism raises challenging questions about the proper role of government. I do not equate it with what I take to be the worldview of Ayn Rand.
Ayn Rand's world is one without community, a place where rugged individuals achieve success all on their own. Rand is therefore blind to the societal infrastructure that makes the accumulation of wealth possible and makes a polity stable enough for an economy to function. I would suggest that the logical outcome of Rand's philosophy is a fractured world, where the wealthy pay paramilitary forces to protect them in their gated communities. It is a world not of some ideal, free market competition, but one in which the absence of regulations leads to monopolization, the further concentration of wealth, and the breakdown of consumer protections. And in that sort of world, the production of wealth becomes more difficult, even for the wealthy. As trite as the phrase has become, it does take a village. Individual success and triumph often requires individual initiative and perseverance, but it also depends upon so much else and so many other people to create and maintain the foundations of a stable society.
Rand's lone individual is an illusion that must be challenged, not only because it is a lie, but because it will never work, at least not in the long run. If Ron and Rand Paul and the like achieve their goals, we will not see renewed prosperity, but rather the fraying of our society and economy, as healthcare and then education and then even fire and police protection become privatized. The inequalities of opportunity will only grow, and the dream of American mobility, already not as realistic a dream as many people imagine, will become a genuine fantasy.
At that moment when my world shattered, it was no longer self-evident why Rand's principle of individualism was absolute, no idea in her atheistic world should compel anyone else, let alone society, to be bound by it. I think the balance is tricky and difficult -- I am by no means opposed to individual rights -- but I would argue, I have argued, that communal values also have a claim upon us, and we may indeed be responsible for one another, ideally or practically, if we wish to maintain a vibrant and prosperous society.
(Note: An earlier version of this essay previously appeared in the Rhode Island Jewish Voice & Herald.)
Michael Shermer: Why Liberals Should See (and Like) Atlas Shrugged Part 1
Steve Mariotti: Teaching Capitalism in the Last Days of the USSR, Part Two
Steve Mariotti: Remembering Ayn Rand
Laura Mola: Hijacking Ayn Rand
Ayn Rand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Objectivism (Ayn Rand) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In Atlas Shrugged, the valley where society's productive people have escaped the broader collectivist society is populated by free people who work and trade value for value with one another.
That is indeed community.
What this community lacks, of course, are non-contributing people who leech off the productivity of others.
The same should apply to today's world -- if you like socialism, then please live it with your fellows, but don't force it on others who don't like it. If you notice, the more free a society is, the less it forces itself on others (as with taxes).
Rand hated religion as well, so there won't be any churches there either.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Like you I flirted with Libertarianism, but have since realized that it too is naive, being based on two concepts with all the reality of Santa Claus and Jes... pardon me, the Easter Bunny: the Independent human and the 'Free' market. For me the Libertarian vision for America is a nightmarish crazy quilt of toll roads,private armies and regional dictatorships.
I have to part with you on Rand's fiction, however. OBJECTIVELY the carved wooden figures she filled her novels with didn't even vaguely resemble human beings. If you want to see a brilliant, HUMAN literary response to Soviet Collectivism read Alexander Solzhenitsyn's novels. He OBJECTIVELY endured hardships Rand couldn't have imagined and came out with his sense of humor intact.
How did you arrive at these conclusion? What part of her philosophy denies community or societal infrastructure? This is just plain false. Why are progressives so notoriously good at distorting and falsifying Rand's philosophy? If you want some accurate presentations of her philosophy, please see The Atlas Society's myth-busters essays: http://www.atlassociety.org/atlas-shrugged/myths-about-ayn-rand
American's did not adopt Ayn Rand. She chose America on principle and adopted it by conviction.
What have you done besides being born?
Trying to find a Jewish conservative today is like looking for a pink elephant.
Not that I agree with any of them, I didn't like Kissinger back when he was with Nixon.
DISAGREE!
Ayn Rand's world is the same as Tony Robbins, we are all individuals, WE are responsible for our efforts, our results, our lives, IT STARTS WITH US, AND OUR VISION FOR OURSELVES!!
From those struggles, as we build ourselves up, we invest, save, distribute our wealth AS WE SEE FIT, NOT some self-anointed experts and "re-distributers" using the monopoly power of government to force people to do what they want! Ayn Rand is all about the power of we free individuals; where we, NOT the federal government, "re-distributes" our wealth AS WE CHOOSE!!
Very simple, if you think it through.
"Ayn Rand's world is one without community, a place where rugged individuals achieve success all on their own. Rand is therefore blind to the societal infrastructure that makes the accumulation of wealth possible and makes a polity stable enough for an economy to function."
The point of Galt's Gulch *was* community - a community of like-minded people who believed in reaping the rewards of what they worked for, who had a functioning economy which was fueled by their backbreaking labor. (Dagny Taggert got paid to be a housekeeper.) And it was through being paid for that labor that their wealth was accumulated - which then supported the societal infrastructure and functioning economy. The people involved in Galt's Gulch fully recognized their interdependence on one another as a community.
And it was in the recognition of interdependency that quality products were produced ... because the producers of those products were proud of their work ... as individuals.
Galt's Gulch was also a place where people practiced ethics in business ... and in that, the novel does, indeed, become idealistic and that is why it would fail in the real world. People do not practice ethics in business.
Also, I absolutely agree with the idea that privatization of public services is dangerous. I also absolutely agree that we are a communal species. And I believe in Cultural Relativism.
I read "The Fountainhead". Good read. I couldnt believe that rape scene though.
"Main Street" by Sinclair Lewis is a revealing read about small town, USA. The book is still relevant today and it is amazing how the same issues we address today were being discussed back than, circa 1915.
Perhaps I will read "Atlas Shrugged".
Wish I'd seen your post before my comment above, MUCH more articulate!
WELL DONE!!
Most understand that an interdependent society is two or more independent people working together for a shared interest. Each has strived to maximize their potential and contribute more than they've consumed, and they've come together for the greater good.
Independent individuals can work together without a large, powerful government. They work together for the common good and shared responsibility.
Democrats and liberals want an interdependent society, but they want to create it with a large number of dependent people. The only way to create an illusion of an interdependent society with a large number of dependent people is with a large, powerful government that has the coercive power to take from independent producers and give it to dependent consumers of wealth.
Dependency comes from an attitude of being a victim. Democrats promote victimhood. You are not responsible for your career, your retirement or even your own health. The locus of control in your life is external, others determine your destiny; corporations, the Koch brothers or some mysterious other that gives and takes away opportunity.
Liberals have twisted Rand into something selfish. Her writing contained independent people coming together and working for the common good. They brought strength and innovation, not weakness and dependency to their community. In Atlas Shrugged, that was Galt's Gulch.
In your world everyone should be able to be a captain of industry and very wealthy. Unfortunately reality says that no, only some people get to be captains of industry. And most people are poor. You can't waltz in and get whatever job you want at whatever salary you want as one con poster said. It doesn't happen. We don't live in a society where you can go to the frontier and make your own way. That rural living was destroyed over a hundred years ago. It was a fantasy then and still is that everyone can work hard and get what they want. Never happened in america's history. Won't happen now.
And Rand is selfish, she knows that only some people can get ahead in this world and leave the rest of us behind is what she desired. And setting up some fictional community doesn't mean it can happen or does.
I knew there was a message somewhere in this article. Freedom of the individual can only be given by a large centralized government. Wasn't this already tried and failed Mr Krinsky?
No matter what creative word you call socialism it will still fail. Go back to the drawing board.
What do Randians and Libertarians think those words mean?
from “The Value of Nothing†by Raj Pate