Tuesday, June 15, 2010

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.

2 comments:

  1. There's not much here worth commenting on, but your statement about "... self-justifying systems in which the powerful assert their absolute right to privilege ..." was most certainly not applicable to Rand. She asserted no right to anything but life, liberty and property.

    Try again some day after you've actually learned what she stood for.

    ReplyDelete
  2. My blog's first snitty comment! I'm very excited, because this means that there are actually people reading my blog other than my friends and family.

    Byafi, how did you come across my blog? I hope you'll deign to continue reading, even though there's not much worth commenting on. I need a good detractor to sharpen my ideas and to continue learning.

    But to respond more directly to your comment, I first of all want to excuse myself if I offended you. As I said in my post, I haven't read Rand, so basically what I can comment on is the article I've cited and the Objectivists with whom I've conversed. Given that framework, I think that my blog post is a fair offering. I would though like to know what you think of the rest of the post, in particular my negation of the conception of society as a few brilliant individuals surrounded by inept, noncontributing masses. Also, do you not agree that a philosophy that posits the wealthy as the most deserving of wealth is sort of self-justifying?

    You dispute my interpretation of Rand as endorsing an absolute right to privilege, but for me the unfettered right to accumulation of property implies a right to privilege. What do you or Rand say regarding situations in which the right to property of one person impedes the right to life or liberty of others? (I'm thinking of examples as when a land baron owns so much land that his neighbors don't have the means to feed themselves.)

    Also, what is the Randian position on inheritance of wealth? I can imagine that the right of an individual to his earned property also implies his right to do with it as he pleases, which would allow for his passing it to his descendants. This is a right asserted in most societies I know of, but it seems to go against Rand's ideal of the bright and the bold's accumulating great riches through their own merits. Furthermore, given that capital multiplies itself, one is left with a situation in which wealth accrues more to the wealthy than to the able.

    That said, I understand the intellectual purity and coherence of asserting an absolute right to property. I imagine such purity is a big part of the appeal of Objectivism to so many people.

    But my problem is that I don't live in a world of pure arguments and counterarguments. I live in a world in which arguments and ideas coexist with, influence, and are influenced by people living in overlapping and inter-nested groups (families, towns, cities, regions, nations, ethnicities, etc.). So for instance the value of personal liberty has to be balanced with the value of personal safety and wellbeing, with the value of collective safety and wellbeing, with the cohesion of the community, etc.

    It may be that allowing the unlimited accumulation of wealth to a few people is intellectually coherent, but it can lead to a brutal, horrid society. I for one would rather live in a place like the US or Denmark, where a general assurance of personal liberty is moderated by occasional interventions of the collective in order to make a more prosperous, just society, as opposed to a place like Haiti, where the accumulation of wealth and power in a few hands makes for a generalized misery. Perhaps Haiti's model for development is more intellectually pure in its respect for the individual's unlimited right to accumulate property, but it doesn't work as a model for society.

    ReplyDelete