Manny’s review of The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism > Likes and Comments
28 likes · Like
And , of course, a greater irony is that Rand would have been diametrically opposed to the social agenda of the right. She was unalterably opposed to religion (especially Christianity) and a confirmed atheist, and very pro-choice. It would seem that Ryan et al have totally ignored Alan Greenspan's complete reversal regarding business self-interest as a brake on crony capitalism. I guess Rand wasn't optimistic enough in her pessimism (or is it the other way around?)
Her books are much like the Bible; one can pick and choose from a whole variety of bizarre beliefs, yet her books have had a seminal impact on several generations of ideologues.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008...
Thanks for making me aware of the existence of this book. I love Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead and We The Living.
Rand never saw herself as part of the right and rightfully so. The libertarian movement which her writings helped spur has never sat well with the right because today's Republicans and "Conservatives" are much closer to the left in ideology and practice than they are to true Libertarian ideals.
Maybe Rand didn't see herself as part of the right, but surely many right-wing people would be happy to claim her as their own?
Manny wrote: "Maybe Rand didn't see herself as part of the right, but surely many right-wing people would be happy to claim her as their own?"
Just as with most "sacred" texts, be it the Bible, Koran, or Atlas Shrugged, the polarized can pick out tidbits and morsels for their own purposes. The "right" as we experience it today (much more theocratic), was very different from the "right" during the fifties (wallowing in anti-Communist obsessions.)
My take on her writings is that she was vigorously atheist, anti-authoritarian, pro-self, her heroes were obsessively narcissistic and romantically individualistic (often in the worst sense of the word) unwilling to join in society unless it was on her terms. She was extremely dictatorial and authoritarian in her relationships with others. Unfortunately, the terms conservative and liberal have little application today (nor did they in the fifties when you had southern Democrats totally at odds with northern Democrats - it was a deliberate strategy on the part of Nixon to co-opt the Dixiecrats into the Republican base.) I think Rand saw herself as being above party politics entirely and was more interested in perpetuating her own, singular worldview. Ironically, Alan Greenspan, one of her acolytes, seems to be distancing himself from her lately.
The only work of Rand's that I've ever read is Anthem. Wasn't much of a story, but blessedly short compared to her other door-stoppers. I pretty much agree with Eric_W's take on her. I believe that she has had one of the most pernicious bodies of influence of any American writer over the last hundred years. Of course Libertarians love her philosophy, as much of it as they care to grasp at any rate.
On Libertarians: I have always resented the fact that this group has co-opted such a noble sounding name for themselves, when their program is anything but noble. Of course they wouldn't simply call themselves Anarchists, since that doesn't sound noble at all - and in fact that would be an insult to true Anarchists. However, the Libertarian program is clearly related to Anarchism in a twisted sort of way. As Colin Ward has observed in Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction
1. What is wrong with untrammeled market capitalism? Seems to be the ONLY system to date to bring the most wealth to the greatest number of people (not just a great deal of wealth to select few who claim to act "for the good of the people").
2. The Libertarian movement failed to amass a mainstream following simply because the vast majority of the population is unwilling/unable (not sure which one or both) to be idealistic in their principles. Ted, let me ask you this, what is so ignoble about a philosophy that recognizes man as the master of his own fate? Libertarian doctrine never advocates the promotion of oneself at the expense of others. Also, where exactly do you see a connection between Libertarians and Anarchists?
Roman:
Are you serious? Do you understand anything about anarchism? I don't mean "bomb throwers". I mean people who deeply mistrust government. Is that enough of a connection?
As for what is wrong with untrammeled market capitalism, nothing if you are someone who wants the "state" to keep its hands off business, you, and your money. But it's not worth my time to argue about this with you, let's just agree to disagree and get on with our lives.
That last question was tongue-in-cheek, but I guess the tone didn't exactly translate well onto the page.
I am curious to hear what your issue with unrestrained market capitalism is since you said there's nothing wrong with it "if you are someone who wants the "state" to keep its hands off business, you, and your money." That sounds like a solid defense of capitalism if you ask me.
I have always found it difficult to understand how many Republicans apparently see no contradiction in simultaneously claiming to be followers of Jesus and Ayn Rand. Maybe this is what C.S. Lewis was satirizing with "Tashlan" in The Last Battle? I don't much like the book, but Tashlan was inspired.
I was cleaning out my bookshelves last week to make room for new stuff. I always donate my old books to the library, but I made an exception with this title -- I tossed it in the recycle bin.
The right is hellbent on creating a class society and have total disregard for the social compact. Their only policy seems to be that if you don't want to pay taxes you should become rich. Well, that and bomb shit (which, oddly, means more taxes).
Esteban wrote: "I was cleaning out my bookshelves last week to make room for new stuff. I always donate my old books to the library, but I made an exception with this title -- I tossed it in the recycle bin."
It gladdens my heart to think that a copy of The Virtue of Selfishness may some day be turned into good, honest toilet paper. And all due to your action.
She wasn't for Capitalism per se, but for liberty, and not for liberty per se, but for reason. Understand that and everything else follows. She also used the typically pejorative term "selfishness" deliberately to antagonise and shrug off people too scared to grasp her point. Still seems to work. She means "rational self interest".
Yank to the UK? I'd swap places with you in a heartbeat.
Ditto Steve... people were paranoid about her and her expression of thoughts through her heroes .
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
And , of course, a greater irony is that Rand would have been diametrically opposed to the social agenda of the right. She was unalterably opposed to religion (especially Christianity) and a confirmed atheist, and very pro-choice. It would seem that Ryan et al have totally ignored Alan Greenspan's complete reversal regarding business self-interest as a brake on crony capitalism. I guess Rand wasn't optimistic enough in her pessimism (or is it the other way around?)Her books are much like the Bible; one can pick and choose from a whole variety of bizarre beliefs, yet her books have had a seminal impact on several generations of ideologues.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008...
Thanks for making me aware of the existence of this book. I love Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead and We The Living.
Rand never saw herself as part of the right and rightfully so. The libertarian movement which her writings helped spur has never sat well with the right because today's Republicans and "Conservatives" are much closer to the left in ideology and practice than they are to true Libertarian ideals.
Maybe Rand didn't see herself as part of the right, but surely many right-wing people would be happy to claim her as their own?
Manny wrote: "Maybe Rand didn't see herself as part of the right, but surely many right-wing people would be happy to claim her as their own?"Just as with most "sacred" texts, be it the Bible, Koran, or Atlas Shrugged, the polarized can pick out tidbits and morsels for their own purposes. The "right" as we experience it today (much more theocratic), was very different from the "right" during the fifties (wallowing in anti-Communist obsessions.)
My take on her writings is that she was vigorously atheist, anti-authoritarian, pro-self, her heroes were obsessively narcissistic and romantically individualistic (often in the worst sense of the word) unwilling to join in society unless it was on her terms. She was extremely dictatorial and authoritarian in her relationships with others. Unfortunately, the terms conservative and liberal have little application today (nor did they in the fifties when you had southern Democrats totally at odds with northern Democrats - it was a deliberate strategy on the part of Nixon to co-opt the Dixiecrats into the Republican base.) I think Rand saw herself as being above party politics entirely and was more interested in perpetuating her own, singular worldview. Ironically, Alan Greenspan, one of her acolytes, seems to be distancing himself from her lately.
The only work of Rand's that I've ever read is Anthem. Wasn't much of a story, but blessedly short compared to her other door-stoppers. I pretty much agree with Eric_W's take on her. I believe that she has had one of the most pernicious bodies of influence of any American writer over the last hundred years. Of course Libertarians love her philosophy, as much of it as they care to grasp at any rate.On Libertarians: I have always resented the fact that this group has co-opted such a noble sounding name for themselves, when their program is anything but noble. Of course they wouldn't simply call themselves Anarchists, since that doesn't sound noble at all - and in fact that would be an insult to true Anarchists. However, the Libertarian program is clearly related to Anarchism in a twisted sort of way. As Colin Ward has observed in Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction
The American 'libertarians' of the 20th century are academics rather than social activists, and their inventiveness seems to be limited to providing an ideology for untrammeled market capitalism.
1. What is wrong with untrammeled market capitalism? Seems to be the ONLY system to date to bring the most wealth to the greatest number of people (not just a great deal of wealth to select few who claim to act "for the good of the people"). 2. The Libertarian movement failed to amass a mainstream following simply because the vast majority of the population is unwilling/unable (not sure which one or both) to be idealistic in their principles. Ted, let me ask you this, what is so ignoble about a philosophy that recognizes man as the master of his own fate? Libertarian doctrine never advocates the promotion of oneself at the expense of others. Also, where exactly do you see a connection between Libertarians and Anarchists?
Roman:Are you serious? Do you understand anything about anarchism? I don't mean "bomb throwers". I mean people who deeply mistrust government. Is that enough of a connection?
As for what is wrong with untrammeled market capitalism, nothing if you are someone who wants the "state" to keep its hands off business, you, and your money. But it's not worth my time to argue about this with you, let's just agree to disagree and get on with our lives.
That last question was tongue-in-cheek, but I guess the tone didn't exactly translate well onto the page.I am curious to hear what your issue with unrestrained market capitalism is since you said there's nothing wrong with it "if you are someone who wants the "state" to keep its hands off business, you, and your money." That sounds like a solid defense of capitalism if you ask me.
This is truly a frightening time in American history. I wish my fellow Americans would have your understanding of how this woman's horrid and simplistic philosophy of selfishness is being given a veneer of polite respectability, by a party (allegedly of "GOD")which consistently persuades a large segment of the American poplulation to vote against their own self-interest through demagoguery and dishonesty. I just do not understand. I guess that I am too close to the problem and too distraught to understand why Americans are even considering Romney-Ryan. (Unless of course, they are Wall Street billionaire hedge fund managers-- then, that would make total sense.) How hard is it for a Yank to emmigrate to UK?
I have always found it difficult to understand how many Republicans apparently see no contradiction in simultaneously claiming to be followers of Jesus and Ayn Rand. Maybe this is what C.S. Lewis was satirizing with "Tashlan" in The Last Battle? I don't much like the book, but Tashlan was inspired.
I was cleaning out my bookshelves last week to make room for new stuff. I always donate my old books to the library, but I made an exception with this title -- I tossed it in the recycle bin. The right is hellbent on creating a class society and have total disregard for the social compact. Their only policy seems to be that if you don't want to pay taxes you should become rich. Well, that and bomb shit (which, oddly, means more taxes).
Esteban wrote: "I was cleaning out my bookshelves last week to make room for new stuff. I always donate my old books to the library, but I made an exception with this title -- I tossed it in the recycle bin."It gladdens my heart to think that a copy of The Virtue of Selfishness may some day be turned into good, honest toilet paper. And all due to your action.
She wasn't for Capitalism per se, but for liberty, and not for liberty per se, but for reason. Understand that and everything else follows. She also used the typically pejorative term "selfishness" deliberately to antagonise and shrug off people too scared to grasp her point. Still seems to work. She means "rational self interest". Yank to the UK? I'd swap places with you in a heartbeat.
Ditto Steve... people were paranoid about her and her expression of thoughts through her heroes .
"What's irritated me about the whole direction of politics in the last 30 years is that it's always been towards the collectivist society. People have forgotten about the personal society. And they say: do I count, do I matter? To which the short answer is, yes. And therefore, it isn't that I set out on economic policies; it's that I set out really to change the approach, and changing the economics is the means of changing that approach. If you change the approach you really are after the heart and soul of the nation. Economics are the method; the object is to change the heart and soul."
I'm disturbed by politicians and economists who want to change something as personal as my "soul." Makes me want to hit them over the head with a very thick book of Rabbi Hillel quotes, punctuate his quote (which forms my basic philosophy, part of my "soul" if you will), "If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? And if I am ONLY for myself, then WHAT am I?" (emphasis added) The ones pushing Rand's philosophy lack the elegant balance of Hillel's statement.
Pet peeve, personal rant. Sorry for spouting.