Attack on Objectivism

[corristo]

I was on another forum earlier today, where there are people of another philosophy, and I was asking what their opinion was of Objectivism. Eventually the owner of the website chimed in, and this was his response:

I’ve read Ayn Rand’s book ‘The Virtue of Selfishness’, a collection of non-fiction essays, in contrast to the fictional novels that comprised the rest her works. Objectivism is worth considering, and she makes some valid points, but you can’t stop there. The bottom line is that her ideology, if it even has that much meat on the bones, has some serious obstacles that prevent it becoming any kind of progressive force. The main reason is because if taken to completion you won’t have a society; it will just be just pirates trying to plunder everyone else. If, however, looting under the cloak of twisted morality is the real goal, then indeed Objectivism is perfect justification. More here: http://www.counterorder.com/money.html

Objectivism criticizes ‘freeloaders and parasites’, but then goes on to spawn a new class of parasites. And most educated people just roll their eyes when Ayn Rand and objectivism come up as topics. For instance, Alan Greenspan was the archetype for the concepts, and was even Rand’s protégé. Yet after decades of effort Greenspan has only become one of the greatest forces ultimately discrediting objectivism in practice.

Here’s an informative article on the topic, particularly as it relates to current interest/personalities: ‘And the Rand Played On’ http://www.motherjones.com/media/2009/07/and-rand-played

I was curious as to what the response is of people better informed with Objectivism. I am relatively new to the philosophy, as I have read Atlas Shrugged and I am in the early chapter of Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal currently. However, his conclusions in regards to the "dog eat dog" result seem to be wrong and a result of a lack of obtaining more information on the philosophy past The Virtue of Selfishness, which I have not read and in turn, unfortunately, am oblivious towards its content.

I would even more specifically like to know the response of my friends here, the Objectivists in regards to the article on MotherJones.

I would like to clarify I do not hold to the philosophy of this website or its "followers".

Thanks a bunch, I appreciate it.

[tito]

His argument is:

1. There are a number of "obstacles" (problems) with Objectivism. The only one he names is that it would rid us of society: instead it would lead to pirates trying to plunder everyone else.

2. "Educated" people don't like Ayn Rand.

Number 1 is a complete fabrication and impossibility. Society is a group of people who live amongst each other, and deal with each other for business and personal reasons - how would this be destroyed? He does not say.

The cannibalistic group of pirates scenario is also unfounded. As anyone who has the slightest clue about Objectivism will telly you, Objectivism is the rational justification for selfishness which includes recognition of individual rights. No Objectivist would infringe upon others rights, upholding individual rights is in fact crucial to achieving personal happiness, and living by plunder is not something that would appeal to any Objectivist: ours is a philosophy of traders.

Number 2 is the argument from intimidation. "Educated people don't like Ayn Rand, so who are you to disagree with them?".

It is essentially an attempt to embarrass or scare readers into accepting other peoples conclusions on faith.

Edited July 26, 2009 by tito

[Marc K.]

I would even more specifically like to know the response of my friends here, the Objectivists in regards to the article on MotherJones.

The article is the typical hatchet job filled with ignorance and mischaracterizations.

Besides, how seriously can you take an article written by someone with so little respect for the power of words and ideas, to wit:

The heroes of her novels were the people who designed buildings and railroads, managed finance and industry—though Rand herself produced little more than words. [emphasis added]

How ironic a situation for a writer to consider words meaningless, and how self-loathing the writer.

[DavidOdden]

I am relatively new to the philosophy, as I have read Atlas Shrugged and I am in the early chapter of Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal currently.

...

I would even more specifically like to know the response of my friends here, the Objectivists in regards to the article on MotherJones.

I have a general response to that kind of rant, which is that, as you said, Objectivism is a philosophy, and not a political movement. That means that we take words and ideas seriously, which means that you have to first understand them. The author of the rant does not understand Objectivism, and is not attempting to engage the philosophy seriously. Rather, she constructs the left-wing equivalent of a Rush Limbaugh rant. There is no rational response to a rant.

[Thales]

He starts out as if he has something to say, yet has nothing. This is oh so typical of so many "critics" of Ayn Rand. Tito hits the nail on the head with his analysis.

[Zip]

I already responded and gave this "article" as much thought as it deserved...

This is what you call smart, fearless journalism? No wonder your entire profession is circling the drain.

Too bad you couldn't follow up your moderately bright title with anything of substance.

"When I emailed a handful of fiction writers and book review editors for a piece I wrote on Rand a few years ago, 100 percent of them worked the word "asshole" into their responses."

What complete and utter bullshit. Yep, journalism at it's finest here at Mother Jones.

Edited July 26, 2009 by Zip

[softwareNerd]

"Mother Jones" is not a place to go to for objective articles. It's more like a communist party leaflet.

Michael Moore was editor briefly, but broke off with a court battle (so, I suppose that vindicates them somewhat).

[kainscalia]

Reading the replies makes my brain hurt. I have an acute allergy to stupidity, and that article's replies nearly triggered a fatal reaction.

[2046]

You pretty much answered your own question: he hasn't really read or understood what he claims to read.

Rand's ethical theory of selfishness is to see oneself as an end in oneself. That is to say that one's own life and happiness are one's highest values, and that one does not exist as a servant or slave to the interests of others. Nor do others exist as servants or slaves to one's own interests.

That's pretty much right out of The Virtue of Selfishness, so if he had read it, he should know better than to think the exact opposite of what the book actually says.

As for Greenspan, he hasn't "practiced Objectivism" (whatever the hell that means) so how that can be discrediting its practice, I don't know.

[L-C]

The standard bullshit. Doesn't deserve any more attention than "lolol objectivism sucks".

[SapereAude]

As for Greenspan, he hasn't "practiced Objectivism" (whatever the hell that means) so how that can be discrediting its practice, I don't know.

Very true.

Like using the current economic problems to discredit free market & capitalism.

How can the actions of someone who doesn't follow Objectivist principle dicredit Objectivism?

How can the results of an increasingly socialist mixed economy discredit capitalism?

As to Mother Jones... the things I've read in that rag are about as rational and coherent as the ranting of the human tollbooths (panhandlers) that plague downtown pdx.

I've yet to find anyone who could give rational point by point explanations as to why Objectivist principles are wrong. It always turns into slinging of insults and vagaries about compassion and your fellow man.

Edited July 27, 2009 by QuoVadis

[LogicsSon]

Hello,

My first time posting. As regards refuting the articles, I read the first article by the 'nihlist', and found it interesting to hear him complain about how greedy Rands philosophy is, while at the same time being a firm advocate of 'nothing'. It reminds me of a food cart here in my city that openly advocates anarchism, yet had sponsered a social medicine campaign ad. Interesting.

As for "Mrs. Jones" her criticisms, as noted earlier, are ad hominem in nature. Beyond this I saw some technical criticisms which were misguided.

1. "In a moment when predatory bankers and arrogant CEOs have been revealed as the real looters and moochers, could there be a less likely folk hero than Galt?"

Response: The John Galt speech specifically talks about these types of men. They pose as business men; men who act according to objective law and principled economics. They are in fact not business men, but are criminals due to their dishonest conduct in creation, sale, and or profits in business. Coercian and fraud are antithetical to what Rand called the "trader principle."

2. "Perhaps the best-known member of Rand's inner circle—officially, and perversely, dubbed the Collective—was a young economist named Alan Greenspan. As the head of the Federal Reserve for two decades, he embraced his mentor's belief that markets work best when corporations are free to pursue their own selfish interests."

Response: A. Alan Greenspans assent or dissent of Objectivist political-economic views hold no bearing on thier truth. The fallacay is the arguement from authority. "But even Anthony Flew gave up atheism"... etc.

B. As Ludvig von Mises said, "The issue is always the same, the government or the market." (Here we see the connection to ethics: individualism or collectivism?) If markets do not "work best when corporations are free to pursue their own selfish interests", how then do they work? Mrs. Jones' objection leaves us with no alternative then to create yet another elite group of men, who will have to a compulsary control on the corporations and the market. How will the wrongs that take place in the business world not be carried over into the political realm? She does not explain. We are to presuppose that this group of individuals, who apparently just know whats best and are incapable of error, will be our gaudian angels.

3. "...the Galters are trying to build a populist movement around a character who fundamentally opposed populism in all its forms."

Response: Ayn Rand rejected the present society. She did not reject the concept of a society or as Mrs. Jones has it, "populism in all its forms." She did not believe that a proper society could exist without a recoginiton of mans rights. If populism means collectivism, then Mrs. Jones is correct.

4. "Could some Galters be going green without realizing it?"

Response: Loaded question. Also how is planting your own vegetables succumbing to the tenents of environmentalism? Beautiful non-sequitor.

Thats all I'm interested in. Hope someone finds my thoughts useful.

[dclynch]

I might be new to Objectivism, but I did not see one statement in that article which is concerned with the true principles of Objectivism. Rather, I'm not sure she knows what she is talking about. She does a remarkable job at condemning blind selfishness, but, unfortunately for her, Objectivism reveres rational selfishness. Further, she provides much more Greenspan-related fluff than actual, philosophical discussion. This article appears to be a surface level "attack" with no basis on the true principles of what Objectivism stands for.

In short, I missed the part where she attacked the beliefs.

[kainscalia]

If there is anything that is painfully clear to me, it is that the owner of the site hasn't actually read the Virtue of Selfishness. Otherwise he would have stumbled upon a little chapter dealing with the Objectivist Ethics and he would have realized "Gee, that whole plundering and pillaging thing doesn't jive with this." Publicly point out the pertinent sections in the book he allegedly read, and he should either go away or self destruct.

Edited August 12, 2009 by kainscalia

[Jill]

What does that journalist mean by predatory bankers?

[L-C]

What does that journalist mean by predatory bankers?

Force is peace, trade is war, A is not A.

[Eiuol]

What does that journalist mean by predatory bankers?

More specifically though, the journalist probably means "bankers who lured people into loans they can't afford". Even though people should be smart enough to know what they can afford or not...

[ctrl y]

Force is peace, trade is war, A is not A.

You forgot, "slavery is freedom."

[Greyhawk]

I agree with everyone who said the author misunderstands Rand's ethics of the producer versus the parasite. As for another point he made, that people will use Rand's ideas to justify their own irrational selfish behavior, he's right but it doesn't really help his case. Ideologies get distorted, misquoted and used to justify destructive intent all the time. People promote socialism with democratic rhetoric, and war in the name of peace.

Edited August 27, 2009 by Greyhawk

[CastleBravo]

Reading the replies makes my brain hurt. I have an acute allergy to stupidity, and that article's replies nearly triggered a fatal reaction.

I slugged through about 5 of them before i literally had to turn off my monitor and count to ten.

Ignorance is truly a debilitating disease...

Usually, when i dont know what im talking about, i keep my mouth shut. This is apparently not a widely held trait.

These people are a prime example of what Yuri Bezmenov refers to as the 'demoralization' of a society. Facts no longer matter. You can show these people the way a million times and they will reject it.

[Grames]

should be linked every time he is mentioned.

Long form version here.

[CastleBravo]

should be linked every time he is mentioned.

Long form version here.

I wanted to but cant get to video hosting sites from work.