The Subversives discussion

Rand Round 2

Comments Showing 1-2 of 2 (2 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Brian (last edited Aug 25, 2016 12:34PM) (new)

Brian | 32 comments Mod

More stuff about Ayn Rand.

Don't get me wrong. I don't hate her. And I loved "The Fountainhead."

I think her anthems towards self-achievement are clarifying and welcome in the abstract realms of thought, that no single system of thought or interpretation should go unchallenged by the efforts of an individual who sees the flaws. I'd characterize my own approach to Oprahism along similar lines, if only because it makes me seem more Popely and less like some random jerk.

I don't think that self-interest alone drives the economy, or society. It's a big one, but I think it should be tempered to a certain degree by social awareness and communication between the actors.

Otherwise, all we've got is the Nash equilibrium, and that's a terrifying world to imagine.

Novel News: First Edit's going relatively well. I'm currently held in place by economics, hence the lengthy digression against Rand.


message 2: by Philip (new)

Philip Gomez | 3 comments Thanks Brian.

As for my opinion, which I'm sure you want, I hate the work of Rand and I despise her few intellectual followers, and I feel sorry for the dumb ones that think she was "brilliant" and subversive.

The funny thing about all of these "anti-communists" is that they never even come close to understanding communism, and are in the end just as wrong-headed as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc. Worse still, they tend to claim to be anti-X, when in fact they are extremely pro-X without even knowing it (where X = the ideology to hate of the day).

For example, Rand always portrays the results of "do-gooders" as oppressive and emotionally/intellectually stifling, but if the world were to be anything like what Rand wished it to be, that is, a truly free-for-all free-market (with perhaps a small government to make sure the market remains free - HA!), it would be just as horrible, if not more terrible, than any of the so-called Communist dictatorships of the past or present. I mean, imagine a world without the 8 hour day, minimum wage, child labor laws, etc. That is Rand's vision, whether she realised it or not, because that is what happens when the people with money have the most power. That is the inevitable result of the anarchy of the free-market, a world where might (economic monopoly = arms monopoly) makes right. I mean, the government, which in a minarchy is there to protect the freedom of the market, must continuously grow proportionately to the economic growth of the wealthiest members of society, or else it gets swollowed by the wealthiest members of society.

(Excuse me; I realise I'm ranting.)

Anyway, Rand was a tool of the conservatives, with excellent timing. Afterall, she wasn't saying anything new or revolutionary - she was just agreeing with the (mostly American) powerful elite. She was acting as their lapdog, because she had no vision for something any better than the "market anarchy or market totalitarianism" paradigm. It was one or the other, and since she was a fan of personal success, she sided with those that cared little for others and loved their money.

You want to talk about subversive writing - even to this day, Marx's work has been a rallying cry for those that do not want to be a part of the "market anarchy or market totalitarianism" paradigm. What Marx called for was the "dictatorship of the working class", not a dictatorship over the working class. He wanted a true democracy, a true majority rule. Sure, his vision has never materialised, but in a world where you either serve or rule, like it or love it, he remains the rebel, even in his grave.

Fuck Rand.

- P.

back to top