Who Isn't John Galt?

Watching the recent attention given to Ayn Rand and her Objectivist philosophy has been bittersweet. I must admit that I was shocked years back finding out that Dick Cheney loved her books, because what he represents is the polar opposite of what I thought the books were really about. You see, I'm not a raging greed-fueled Capitalist, I'm an Artist. Not that I don't want to make a good living doing what I do, but I was affected in a radically different way by Rand's writings and philosophy and feel strongly that The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged were by far the two most important books I've ever read. Their impact on my own beliefs still resonates today in every aspect of my life, which is why I've found myself rather horrified by the vitriol spewed towards Rand in the general media.

But I would posit that there are two very different books in each of her novels and, depending on the reader, you get one or the other, but not both. They both have to do with selfishness but one veers towards Evil while the other, towards Salvation. Let me explain.

If you are a Capitalist or fan of Capitalism in general, then Rand's books speak to your inherent desire to make as much money as possible, pay as little taxes as possible and basically get yours regardless of others. The Dick Cheneys of the world douse their selfish mantle with the hot cologne of "Fuck You" hovering around their every move, their vision and purpose focused on the almighty dollar while ignoring the human chattel crushed beneath their Panzer tank mentality.

However, if you are an Artist, Rand's books free you from the opinions of others and put ironclad gates around your sense of purpose, unlocking the freedom to create your art unencumbered by the opinions or judgments of the rest of humanity. This is a profound and enlightening freedom available to those who choose it and denied to those who are taught to think they never could. The boldest of artists work not just outside the lines but with disregard to the existence of lines at all, with impunity from critics and the pearl-sniffing swine. They are able to release the purist visions from their unchained minds and create unabashedly personal work that exists solely as a manifestation of their will and desire, regardless of whether the world takes notice or regards it as such.

Great art and music can enlighten the world, lift the masses and stimulate the senses, as it has countless times in the evolution of humanity. But rampant deregulated Capitalism can (and always does) spawn a greed-fueled Hell on Earth, if you are among the 99.99% that are not reaping the financial rewards. You cannot cure humanity of greed, which is why laws and regulation exist in the first place.

In essence, there are two kinds of Selfish that can find their roots in Rand's writings. The first is the Dick Cheney/Alan Greenspan selfishness, inherent in Right wing think tank philosophy and spewed by the foaming mouths of Red State Republicans everywhere. Basically, it's the inherent selfishness, self-interest and self-righteousness of the Aristocracy as they pee on the Proles and count their ducats. Not to say that every rich person is that self-consumed; one only need look at the efforts of Bill and Melinda Gates to see that making and having money doesn't mean you have to be arrogant and self-consumed. Rand understood that Ethics was a separate concern than Selfishness, even though your sense of ethical rights and wrongs ultimately fuels the direction and intent of your selfishness.

The other kind of Selfish available in Rand's writings is not Left or Right, nor is it really political at all. It has more to do with one's sense of purpose, ownership of self and being true to ones core ideals. And not just as an Artist, though this is where Rand's philosophy has manifested itself most effectively in my own life. It goes down to the core of humanity and our own nature: whether you love or hate other people. And that relies on whether you see others as yourself, or whether you see them as separate and unequal.

You know, Empathy, the ability to understand and share the feelings of others. Do I think Dick Cheney or Alan Greenspan understand and share the feelings of others? Perhaps only each other, but certainly not the rest of "us." One can be totally selfish and still have empathy for others, to feel the bond of human brotherhood while being true to ones life purpose. I feel that way 100% and have been able to be true and uncompromising to my ideals and creativity while caring for and bonding with my brethren on the Planet Earth.

For those of you familiar with the Bible (the only book cited as more influential than Atlas Shrugged in a Library of Congress survey) there is a quote from Matthew 7:12 that reads, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." Meaning in essence, treat others like you want to be treated. Therefore in theory, the more empathetic you are towards others, the more selfish you actually are towards yourself.

Most people think of the "Do unto others" quote in the case of things that we shalt not do, but it's really more powerful when we think of what we can and should do. If you love yourself, you will love others accordingly. If you hate yourself, you will have nothing but contempt and disdain for the rest of humanity and will take it out on them individually and collectively whenever possible. And if you happen to have the power of VP or Head of the Fed, for instance, your chances for global self-destruction are certainly amplified.

So is Selfishness a black and white issue? Hardly. We can think in absolutes but all theories are subject to the vagaries of reality, where things don't always go as planned and nothing is truly perfect. But we can easily see how ones sense of self and purpose- and ones inherent good or evil nature- can be affected in radically different ways by Rand's words. For instance, Atlas Shrugged's self-stated theme is "the role of the mind in man's existence- and, as a corollary, the demonstration of a new moral philosophy: the morality of rational self-interest." To the Capitalist, rational self-interest is far different than the musician or painter honing their craft. Same goes for Rand's quote about the essence of Objectivism being "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

One could see how this rationale gives entirely different purpose to Dick Cheney or Alan Greenspan as it does to Jimi Hendrix or John Lennon. Indeed, imagine what the world would be like without Cheney, Bush or Greenspan, and reflect on what the world is already like without Lennon, Bob Marley or Hendrix. The latter group a gigantic loss for art and humanity; the former, a blight and pox on the world and it's occupants.

When you look at Rand's acolytes in the world of Capitalism, you see a group of people who believe that they are better than the rest of the world and have every right to suck and horde every dollar they can from anyone stupid enough to part with it. In laissez-faire Capitalism, you see the worst side of Selfishness: unencumbered by humility and empathy, with no connection to the planet and the people who inhabit it other than cash flow. Resources are for plundering, people are suckers and Money is Everything. The last few decades of greed and the bursting of bubbles have shown us the dark side of this mentality and the core problem of Selfishness without Empathy.

But to look at Rand's influence in the world of Art, simply turn up any Rush album and listen to the Objectivist prose of lyricist and master drummer Neil Peart. Being true to one's nature, one's mind and one's sense of purpose doesn't have to mean screwing over anyone in your path, nor does it mean letting anyone sway your core artistic beliefs. Indeed, the celebrated exchange between The Fountainhead's indelible architect Howard Roarke and his antagonist Ellsworth Toohey is instructive in this regard. When Toohey finally meets Roark, he asks "Why don't you tell me what you think of me, Mr. Roark?" to which Roark replies, "But I don't think of you." Roark isn't bent on destroying Toohey or even replying to his taunts and criticisms. He has no need to even acknowledge Toohey's vendetta-like critique of his work because he has no need for outside approval. Roark needs only his own reason and rationale for creating his work.

The power of this freedom on the artist is immeasurable. But building a building or writing a song or painting a painting in all it's selfish glory doesn't screw people over in any consequential way, while true selfishness in Capitalism has proved to be an unfettered disaster for most of humanity, aside from the choice few who have benefitted financially (talking to you Goldman Sachs). And so it goes, the worst of Capitalism is destructive on a human scale. Consequently, badly made art is simply ignored. I guarantee you Bernie Madoff's victims are far worse off than those who bought the last Prince album.

The individual "must exist for his own sake", Rand wrote in 1962, "neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself." This belief fuels individuals like Lennon, Marley and Hendrix to speak truths that are not just freeing to them but to any other being they touch. Think of "Imagine." "Get Up Stand Up." "The Star Spangled Banner" at Woodstock. Empathy for the brotherhood of man, the rights of human dignity, the horrors of war. This is not about any political system but about a human system, the interconnected nature of people and the planet. Selfishness is supposed to be the opposite of altruism, but why can't you be both? To be altruistically selfish, where you can care and have empathy for all others while maintaining a strong sense of self-purpose? Absolutely.

Once again, look at Bill and Melinda Gates, rich beyond any of our wildest dreams and yet, donating billions to combat malaria and improve education around the world. I suppose one could say that Bill Gates is an altruistic Capitalist as well, making those two terms not so incongruous. But find me one altruistic Capitalist on Wall Street, giving up his bonuses to help his coworkers and sacrificing for the greater good. So far, it feels like Wall Street was the Titanic and when everyone rushed for the lifeboats, they had already sailed away to the Hamptons with Top Level Management and all the good champagne.

If your heart and soul are empathetic and altruistic, no amount of selfishness can break that bond you feel with others. Ayn Rand may have spawned some coldblooded Capitalists hellbent on raping the world, but she also gave enlightenment and freedom to those who would save and protect it. In the words of Jimi Hendrix, "When the power of love conquers the love of power then the world will know peace." I say bring it on!

The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me. - Ayn Rand

Freedom, freedom, give to me; That's what I need. Freedom, freedom to live Freedom, freedom, so I can give. - Jimi Hendrix, "Freedom"

A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others. - Ayn Rand

Live for yourself; there's no one else more worth living for. - Neil Peart/Rush, "Anthem"

What's the most depraved type of human being? The man without a purpose. - Ayn Rand

Get up, stand up: stand up for your rights! Get up, stand up: dont give up the fight! - Bob Marley, "Get Up Stand Up"

Achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life, and that happiness, not pain or mindless self-indulgence, is the proof of your moral integrity, since it is the proof and the result of your loyalty to the achievement of your values. - Ayn Rand

Imagine all the people Living for today... Imagine all the people Living life in peace... Imagine all the people Sharing all the world... - John Lennon, "Imagine"

The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see. - Ayn Rand

----------------

The three cardinal values of the Objectivist ethics ... are: Reason, Purpose, Self-Esteem, with their three corresponding virtues: Rationality, Productiveness, Pride. - Ayn Rand in The Virtue of Selfishness

Comments

[verdured]

Neil Peart doesn't read Ayn Rand anymore. He is not an Objectivist. He has pretty much written off his association with Ayn Rand's novels.

I've never read Ayn Rand, mainly because by the time I'd heard of her books, the publisher was inserting recruiting forms in them for some kind of Ayn Rand organization. I don't trust anyone who uses recruiting techniques like this. What's the deal, she didn't make enough money on the books?

Why does everyone feel the need to have a guru like this? I've been making music for over twenty years, and never needed Ayn Rand (or anyone else for that matter) to tell me that I'm allowed to be an individual.

If Ayn Rand is trying to convince everyone to be individuals, why is she trying to recruit them into her organization? This is like punks having dress codes; way to conform in your non-confor­mity...

Seems to me Ayn Rand wanted to start her own religion, but no-one joined.

[Robbie Gennet - Huffpost Blogger]

Hey there~ to all who responded to this piece, I much appreciate your comments and interest.

I've just posted a follow up piece addressing a lot of the discussion that's been going on and I hope you'll read it and continue the discussion in the comments. Thanks!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-gennet/who-isnt-john-galt-part-2_b_272014.html

[kilgore trout]

Somewhat jarring to read you list of quotes at the end of the piece, especially the juxtaposition of Ayn Rand followed by John Lennon's "Imagine" lyric. I suspect both Rand and Lennon would laugh, or at least, be seized by an attack of hiccups.

and then there's Lennon/McC­artney's..­..
"And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make." Not a sentiment you're likely to find hidden in Rand's works.

[martinchill]

knew a band called Kilgore Trout years ago.

[mtnrunner2]

Robbie,

There are not two types of selfishness arising from Rand's writings, there is the type she *actually* advocated, and there is the deliberate distortion of her ideas that liberals seem to like to tar and feather their enemies with.

Rand did not advocate material gain at others' expense, as per the quote you yourself included:

"The individual "must exist for his own sake", Rand wrote in 1962, "neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself."

In other words, everyone has the same rights. Not Big Oil trampling everyone else, not universal health care enslaving doctors for the sake of patients. Equality.

As for Dick Cheney, I'm an Objectivist and I have not seen much he's done that Rand's philosophy would endorse. He seems to me like a power-grabber who wants to channel tax money and privileges to his buddies, and avoid legal restrictions at all costs. That is not selfishness, and what he advocates is not the laissez-faire capitalism Rand advocated.

Objectivists also know that Greenspan must have repudiated Objectivism and capitalism before he joined the Fed in '87. Why? Because laissez-faire capitalists would abolish the Fed, not run it.

You do seem to have some understanding of Objectivism, Rand's writings in general, as applied to artistic endeavors. However, you don't apply them correctly to economics and politics, and you don't fully understand self-interest or capitalism. They are not what you think. I would review Rand's writing and try again.

[Tallulah Morehead - Huffpost Blogger]

"I would review Rand's writing and try again."

Better you should throw Rand's writing in the trash and try again yourself, with something worthwhile.

[Fred Weiss]

"DosGatos2" you thoroughly misinterpreted what Jack Crawford said. He would certainly not deny the benefits of civilization and that is not the issue he was addressing. Furthermore, that civilization rests on the shoulders of the industralists and inventors who created both the ideas and the wealth that made possible your "hospitals, bridges, airports, schools, roads". In fact they often built them directly. That vast wealth - a product of capitalism - made possible the taxes to pay for them.

As for those taxes themselves, it was taken by force. No one voluntarily decided to chip in. Nor were those taxes necessary, then or now. All of those "hospitals, bridges, airports, schools, roads" could have been built privately - and most certainly would have been and it would have been far better had they been. But that's a whole other discussion.

[DosGatos2]

You give too little weight to the "benefits of civilization" and place too much emphasis on individual initiative. You can have all the ambition in the world but if you cannot read and write, if you die of preventable childhood diseases before adulthood, chances are excellent that you will never exercise your inner capitalist or your inner artist.

Initiative requires a platform to spring from. Calculate the value of having a first world education and the opportunities you have had, then compare it to the amounts you think have been "taken" from you. Chances are you got the better deal--and you owe a great debt to those that paid for that platform.

Sure, capitalists could have build infrastructure but they didn't--and they tried to prevent development if they thought it posed a competitive threat. Many hospitals and schools were built by religious organizations, but that was no threat. Ever wonder why there were railroads coast to coast in the 19th century, but the interstate highway system waited until the government developed it in the1940's? Because railroad barons feared competition from an interstate highway system and fought development for years. The system helped create wealth though, lots of mom-and-pop businesses that would never have existed otherwise--yes, a platform for the creation of wealth provided courtesy of the government.

[Kathryn Maver]

I don't know how you could twist and pull any artistic moral "goodness" out of Ayn Rand. The only book I read of hers was Atlas Shrugged and I found it to be completely lacking in morally redeeming qualities. The evil consequences of her philosophies are being played out all over the world in poverty, sickness, alientation from community, and death. I detested the book almost as much as I detest Dick Cheney.

[SoooooFedUp]

BILL GATES, IS AS "SELF-CONSUMED" AS ANY AYN RANDIAN CAN BE.

HE HAS HURT MANY, MANY PEOPLE. HE, AND ALL THOSE OTHER COMPANIES WHO EXPLOITED TEMPS AND CONTRACTORS ALL THESE YEARS, SHOULD CREATE A "REPARATIONS FUND" TO RESTORE US TO FINANCIAL STABILITY!

Bill Gates and Microsoft's GREED AND INDIFFERENCE made "TEMPS AND CONTRACTORS" of an ever increasing portion of their hard working workforce as SOP, robbing them of all benefits: HEALTH CARE, 401K, PROFIT SHARING/STOCK, VACATION, SICK LEAVE...AN­D SECURITY, in order to PAD THEIR BOTTOM LINE. (not to mention his monopolistic practices that harmed other electronics companies and their talented, creative employees WHO CREATED TECHNOLOGY HE EITHER STOLE OR PREVENTED FROM SELLING)

This practice of using wage and benefit intercept companies is a corporate VIRUS that has spread THROUGHOUT AMERICA - IMPOVERISHING and DESTABILIZING MILLIONS: ENGINEERS, DESIGNERS, LABORORERS, EVEN CEO's!! And that doesn't include Microsoft's monopolistic practices that harmed other companies and their brilliant, talented, creative employees WHO CREATED TECHNOLOGY they STOLE or PREVENTED FROM SELLING!)

Microsoft lost a lawsuit brought by WashTech, a group of exploited Microsoft workers. BUT HE COMPLIED WITH THE COURTS' NEW LAW (ABOUT WHEN A TEMP HAD TO BE "HIRED") BY MAKING THOSE WORKERS "TEMPS AND CONTRACTORS" UNTIL THE DATE REQUIRED, THEN FIRING THEM - for a few months, then brought them back as TEMPS AND CONTRACTORS.

PLEASE, DON'T PRETEND THAT BILL GATES IS A HUMANITARIAN!! He BELONGS IN THE HALLS OF THE INFAMOUS WITH FREEDMAN, AND HIS ILK.

[Fred Weiss]

Robbie, you have a fascinating and inspiring agreement with Rand combined with such a startling misunderstanding. Somewhere in your reading you grasped the half of "Do not sacrifice yourself to others" but forgot about the other half, "Do not sacrifice others to yourself".

As a minor point, I'd be curious how you know that Dick Cheney is an admirer. I've never heard that. Not that I'd mind. I happen to like him a lot.

As for Greenspan, he explicitly disassociated himself from Rand many years ago and he is generally thoroughly loathed today by her supporters.

But, all that said, you have a very interesting take on Rand, one I've never quite heard before. It sounds a bit like Camilla Paglia - and perhaps even John Mackey of Whole Foods (this latter perhaps surprising you).

[lokipuck]

"I happen to like him a lot."

So YOU'RE the guy!

[MrJM]

The major problem with Rand's philosophy is that it can only work -- even in theory -- in an imaginary adults-only world.

In the real world, one cannot demand Randian heroism without inadvertently punishing innocent children.

Details... details...

-- MrJM

[chipnyc]

Are you going to make an argument or just an arbitrary assertion?

[MrJM]

Reality doesn't need me to defend it from the Randian belief that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest and that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in pure laissez faire capitalism.

Rather, children need us to defend them from those who hold such beliefs.

-- MrJM

[ARTIST50]

Personally, I think Rand generally impresses the young. As you age, life itself proves the error of her ways.

[Peachfuzz2112]

I couldn't get through the whole piece since you start off bashing capitalists. Not all capitalist are out to make as much as they can at the expense of everyone else. But I do like a system where if I work harder than you, I'm rewarded more than you too.
For those who don't, there are plenty of places that will let you "coast" right on through. Good luck with that!

[munkeyfuk]

Peachfuzz,

"if I work harder than you, I'm rewarded more than you"

Does this mean you think ditch-diggers should make more than CEO's?

[martinchill]

or school teachers?

[Jack Crawford]

Unfortunately some people think that if you make as much of yourself as you can, you have to share it with those who had no hand in it at all.

[DosGatos2]

In fact, "they" did have a hand in your success, Jack. "They" paid taxes which were used to build hospitals, bridges, airports, schools, roads. "They" paid taxes that went to Pell Grants, federal student loans, that allowed you to go to college and grad school."Th­ey" paid for the police and firemen who kept you safe so you could grow up and make something of yourself. "They" took care of your parents by paying taxes to Social Security and Medicare.

None of this infrastructure sprung in to being the day you were born. You did not create it. But were given the privilege of taking advantage of it without have earned or contributed to any of it personally.

Be grateful to those nameless, faceless taxpaying "they"s who paid for the platform which enabled you to become a success. Once you put the Rand book down and look around, you may begin to appreciate the things "they"--total strangers-­-contribut­ed to your success and which you take for granted.

If you think you would be just as successful today without those advantages--that pure Randian initiative is enough--then I suggest a trip to Rwanda or maybe Sudan's Darfur region. Life without that infrastructure isa misery and difficult to escape from, assuming of course, you survive to adulthood.

[lipai]

"However, if you are an Artist, Rand's books free you from the opinions of others and put ironclad gates around your sense of purpose, unlocking the freedom to create your art unencumbered by the opinions or judgments of the rest of humanity."

Technically, this is defined as artistic masturbation. And that's why American art is so boring. We are not talking about crafts, but American art.

I have met several international artists in my time and what I have been continuously struck by is their ability to listen, share rather enthusiastically with others, and their courage to root around aimlessly when they wish to.

And one great artist comes to mind that nails down these conditions: Douglas Adams. My favorites stories of him are the ones of him procrastinating from writing in-between the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy novels.

I have read Rand, and at one point, I did follow her banner; but after awhile, Rand's philosophy integrated in art continues to hit a wall. One cannot continue to make art in a vacuum; that's why artists search for their audience. This a difficult journey and not all artists succeed.

All artists contend that ultimately art is not made, but found. A large landscape of gifts itching for discovery that an artist explores. This is the "artistic purpose" or sometimes the "statement"; one gift from this epic landscape which one has opened in real time through the use of materials and tools.

[Eris23]

"Technically, this is defined as artistic masturbation. And that's why American art is so boring. We are not talking about crafts, but American art."

Agreed.

[johnsopinion]

I agree with most all you say about Rand. It's what you DON'T say, or
point out that grates on my nerves and is where most people fail
miserably in trying to understand and explain Rand.

You say:

".....the morality of rational self-inter­est." To the Capitalist, rational
self-interest is far different than the musician or painter honing
their craft."

You see, even as you speak of "the Capitalist," you have totally ignored
one word that Rand went to great lengths to explain--but, everyone, and
I do mean--everyone, seems to be uncomfortable wrestling with it !?!?
The word? MORALITY! "...the morality of rational self-interest," implying
an underlying cause.
(Ironically, Rand was the biggest advocate of 'defining your terms' and
few rarely do. Most have no idea what any of these words mean; rational,
moral, capitalist, artist, self-esteem, etc,.)
Greenspan ignored the word, Cheney ignored the word, all critics ignore it.
Everyone keeps shoving it under the rug. Why do you suppose that is?

Rand's two works of fiction presents Galt as an "ideal" (another word most
people don't comprehend).
Contrast:
--Bush: the end justifies the means.
--Galt: the means justifies the end.

Bush--the goal, the ideal, justifies whatever you have to do to reach it,
even killing.
Galt--the means, your actions, will justify whatever end you reach, which
may not be the goal you sought.

[Whatevah]

I think this essay makes a great deal of sense. I've always thought that Rand's stuff contained just enough good ideas to be appealing. For example, I've always been drawn to her rejection of all religion.

Still, Rand's work contains so much shrill, bigoted cruelty that I find it impossible to take seriously as a whole. It's interesting that almost all of her followers are very young. Maturity brings with it the wisdom to see just how much nonsense is mixed in with the good.

[johnsopinion]

I'm sure you are correct.

I'm 66 years young and still defend many of her concepts.
She wasn't perfect. But then...... neither am I.

[Tallulah Morehead - Huffpost Blogger]

"She wasn't perfect. But then...... neither am I"

That's the first correct comment you've posted on this thread.

[gulopartisan]

I'm sorry, I'm supposed to take seriously a man who is so self-absorbed that he thinks he has the right to blow up a building? The building doesn't belong to him. The men who build it --the despised masses -- had just as much right to blow it up as he does. The corporation that paid for it -- the despised Philistines who compromised Galt's vision --have the same right. But not in Rand Land. This is reasoning so infantile it's unanswerable.

[BlackJAC]

Ayn Rand was throwing a temper tantrum over being unceremoniously removed from a life of privilege, and the Red Scare gave her street cred for it. Had the Commies not come to power for whatever reason, she'd've simply been known as the mother of some Paris Hilton-class celebutante.

[Whatevah]

Alas, very true.

[johnsopinion]

Sorry you missed the point.
Maybe on the next go 'round you'll pick up on it.

[Tallulah Morehead - Huffpost Blogger]

Well it was a Howard Roarke who blew up teh building, not Jon Galt, but otherwise, I have to agree with you.