Ayn Rand

Here's an article about Ayn Rand from the Nation. The author asserts that Rand was mediocre both in the form and the content of her writing. The author also compares Randism to Nazism. While I see the parallels between the two self-justifying systems in which the powerful assert their absolute right to privilege, I think it's always an ugly, intellectually lazy exercise to compare any philosophy to Nazism.

I've never read Rand, but this article reignites my desire to read her (though I wonder if I'd be able to stomach hundreds of pages of bombastic melodrama and puerile pontificating).

In college I often crossed paths with young Objectivists (as Rand's followers are known). Their insistence in the merit and superiority of the rich and powerful (as demonstrated by their being rich and powerful, an eminently tautological argument) always seemed silly and thin to me, and in general I always had the impression that those who espoused Rand's ideas were basing their beliefs on a very limited, privileged experience of reality. Here in Colombia, for example, it's not at all the most qualified or smartest people who have most of the power and wealth--usually it's oligarchs who were born into their family's wealth and power. Another seeming parry to what little I know of Rand's ideas is that the mass of people are not in fact idle moochers living and benefiting thanks to the brilliance of a few elite heroes. The mass of people throughout post-Neolithic history have been farmers that were wholly responsible for their own well-being, with the elites of a given society taking wealth from them and offering little in return. So it seems that Rand's model of society, like that of many other non-agrarian thinkers, is fundamentally flawed because it doesn't consider the independence and ingenuity of the agrarian masses that form the base of any functioning society.

I quote a passage from Rand, as quoted in the article: "The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all their brains. Such is the nature of the "competition" between the strong and the weak of the intellect. Such is the pattern of "exploitation" for which you have damned the strong."

This passage is fundamentally ridiculous. The intellect is not the main thing preserving people, though it's obviously important. But even if we were to accept that there exists an intellectual pyramid with certain people at the top, those people rely on an entire societal network to feed, clothe, raise, and protect them. There exists no "man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude", because in fact the man at the bottom is usually a hunter or a farmer, who manages to feed himself, his family, and other people off of his farm. Einstein or Edison, as brilliant as they were, wouldn't last a day if they were called upon to feed themselves directly. And the contrary is true: while I as an educated, wealthy person in a Western consumer society, very much appreciate the ideas and accomplishments of these great thinkers, their contributions to society can never compare to the produce of the humblest farmer. Equations and light bulbs are nice, but food is essential.

This though is not obvious for an urban intellectual like Rand, who seemingly dedicated all her time to writing and movies, and presumably was too caught up in grand thoughts to reflect on where the food that sustained her was coming from.