Ayn Rand In 1959: "This Country Is Moving Towards Socialism"

[Political Junky]

And that was in the 50s!!!!!!! The 50s!!!!

Just imagine how much we've moved in just 50 years!

Yes, just look at McCarthy who saw Communists everywhere in the '50s.
Thank God he got put in his place.

 

[obama2ndterm]

Most of the right-wing commentary purporting to prove that the rich bear the overwhelming burden of government relies upon the simple trick of citing only the income tax, which is progressive, while ignoring more regressive levies. A brief overview of the facts lends some perspective to the fears of a new Red Terror. Our government divides its functions between the federal, state, and local levels. State and local governments tend to raise revenue in ways that tax the poor at higher rates than the rich. (It is difficult for a state or a locality to maintain higher rates on the rich, who can easily move to another town or state that offers lower rates.) The federal government raises some of its revenue from progressive sources, such as the income tax, but also healthy chunks from regressive levies, such as the payroll tax.

The sum total of these taxes levies a slightly higher rate on the rich. The bottom 99 percent of taxpayers pay 29.4 percent of their income in local, state, and federal taxes. The top 1 percent pay an average total tax rate of 30.9 percent--slightly higher, but hardly the sort of punishment that ought to prompt thoughts of withdrawing from society to create a secret realm of capitalistic übermenschen. These numbers tend to bounce back and forth, depending upon which party controls the government at any given time. If Obama succeeds in enacting his tax policies, the tax burden on the rich will bump up slightly, just as it bumped down under George W. Bush.

What is so striking, and serves as the clearest mark of Rand’s lasting influence, is the language of moral absolutism applied by the right to these questions. Conservatives define the see-sawing of the federal tax-and-transfer system between slightly redistributive and very slightly redistributive as a culture war over capitalism, or a final battle to save the free enterprise system from the hoard of free-riders. And Obama certainly is expanding the role of the federal government, though probably less than George W. Bush did. (The Democratic health care bills would add considerably less net expenditure to the federal budget than Bush’s prescription drug benefit.) The hysteria lies in the realization that Obama would make the government more redistributive--that he would steal from the virtuous (them) and give to the undeserving.

Like many other followers of Rand, John Allison of BB&T has taken to claiming vindication in the convulsive events of the past year. "Rand predicted what would happen fifty years ago,” he told The New York Times. "It’s a nightmare for anyone who supports individual rights." If Rand was truly right, of course, then Allison will flee his home and join his fellow supermen in some distant capitalist nirvana. So perhaps the economic crisis may bring some good after all.
jonathan chait

 

[Dr.Traveler]

This rationale I found to be one of the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives. Liberals make themselves dependant on others. They sell the individual short and expect very little of them. Why do you insist people are capable of so little when they are demonstrably capable of so much?

The FACT that you are unwilling to accept, is that people don't achieve because they essentially CHOOSE not to. You simply can not make the argument, looking at the people you know, or just knowing human nature in general, that the majority of people have maxed out their potential. That it is simply impossible to achieve anymore.

Most people have not "maxed out" their potential, but of course what "maxing out" your potential even means is questionable as people have a lot of different responsibilities and goals, not all of which are compatible.

My point is that the "Atlas" figures of Rand's book aren't heroes. They're selfish jerks that profited from the society they then choose to abandon. That's ultimately the failure of objectivism. It fails to acknowledge that the individual's success is often built upon the scientific, economic, and social advances that came before and the acceptance, in either a scholastic or monetary form, of their work on the part of the world around them.

 

[Oddball]

Always amusing to hear apologists for the socialistic welfare state shriek about Rand's "moral absolutism"!

 

[beowolfe]

Just because her philosophy isn't taught, or most other philosophers don't consider her among them, doesn't make her any less a philosopher. Just because a philosophy isn't all that attractive to the masses doesn't mean it's not a philosophy.

And a run of the mill political opinion (without any proof to back it up) doesn't mean it's a philosophy either..

 

[Bfgrn]

Dumber words were never spoken. It is a mind boggling, non-sensical statement made be someone more content to hurl insults than evaluate the ideology behind it.

I'm not sure what exactley is childish about believing you have a right to the fruits of your labor and the right to defend them.

Rand's philosophy works in a fictional novel. In the real world Rand's philosophy fails to account for the fact that no one can accomplish much on their own.

This rationale I found to be one of the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives. Liberals make themselves dependant on others. They sell the individual short and expect very little of them. Why do you insist people are capable of so little when they are demonstrably capable of so much?

The FACT that you are unwilling to accept, is that people don't achieve because they essentially CHOOSE not to. You simply can not make the argument, looking at the people you know, or just knowing human nature in general, that the majority of people have maxed out their potential. That it is simply impossible to achieve anymore.

What you're talking about is personal responsibility... which is a double edged sword...

With responsibility comes liability...

Some of the strict regulations our founding fathers placed on corporations were:

-Corporations could not own stock in other corporations

-They were prohibited from any part of the political process

-In order to receive the profit-making privileges the shareholders sought, their corporations had to represent a clear benefit for the public good

-Individual stockholders were held personally liable for any harms done in the name of the corporation

So if THOSE were still the ground rules then I'm all for personal responsibility, if not, then government intervention is only way to protect the individual's life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...

Also...more than 1/2 the people of America ARE dependents... children, the elderly and the disabled...

Right wing pea brain solutions are fantastic....if only people would just evaporate...

"The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."
President Abraham Lincoln

 

[obama2ndterm]

Personal Criticisms of Ayn Rand

The following criticize Ayn Rand's personality, behavior, or literary techniques.

* In Answer to Ayn Rand by Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden -- Couple who were once two of Rand's closest associates give their side of the break between them and Rand. Written in response to the article "To Whom It May Concern" in The Objectivist, in which Rand publically repudiated the Brandens.
* Rand's work: style and quality by Gary Merrill -- Criticism of Rand's writing style and lack of scholarship in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. Orginally a post to a discussion group, now preserved as a freestanding essay.
* Rationalistic Solipsism: The Life and Thought of Ayn Rand by Ellen Myers -- Myers recounts Rand's life story as one of "dogmatic rationalism," which she should have "exchanged for truth and freedom in Christ." Written for the journal of the Creation Social Science and Humanities Society.
* Estonian & Latvian Genocide by William Pierce -- Pierce, a well-known anti-semite, begins by denouncing Rand as a "Soviet Jewess," and then segues into a discussion of supposed Jewish slaughters of gentiles during World War II.
* Romancing the Stone-Cold Killer: Ayn Rand and William Hickman by Michael Prescott -- Criticizes positive comments Rand made about Hickman, a kidnapper and murderer, in her personal journals when she was 23. Prescott say Rand's comments "make me question not only her judgment, but her sanity" and show that she was "a psychological and moral mess."
* Was Ayn Rand evil? by Michael Prescott -- Blog post that psychoanalyzes Rand as possibly being "a narcissistic, manipulative sociopath." In a subsequent post, Prescott backs away from his earlier comments, calling them "unfair."
* Re-evaluating Ayn Rand by Grant Schuyler -- Accuses Rand of "rude and deeply inappropriate behaviour" in her handling of philosophical disputes, and warns that "Her life shows the danger of becoming an isolated figure, especially one surrounded by a quasi-cult of insiders."
* Ayn Rand: An Unsympathetic Introduction by Timothy Wirkman Virkkala -- Briefly reviews some of Rand's published works, then critiques Rand herself, stating that "even the most most extremely negative judgments against her character have some merit to them."
* Ayn Rand: Narcissistic Scapegoating Leftism by Bob Wallace -- Essay by a religious libertarian describing Objectivism as "a narcissistic, scapegoating, and leftist expression of Rand's Narcissistic Personality Disorder." Wallace compares Rand with Karl Marx, Adolf Hitler, the Marquis de Sade and Satan, and fingers her as the source of Satanism and suicides. (Originally placed online as a single essay, it is now reproduced on Wallace's blog in three parts. The link to the left is part 1; he has also posted part 2 and part 3.)
* The Secret Teachings of Ayn Rand by Bob Wallace -- This essay, similar to the previous one by Wallace, describes Rand as a "scapegoater who believed in human sacrfice," and says she "obviously had something very wrong with her, which she was trying to fix through her writing."
* Ayn Rand: Sociopath (author anonymous) -- MySpace page devoted to criticizing Rand for her "mental illness."
objectivism

 

[EriktheRed]

What freedom exactly do you lose on the off chance you were someone who was deemed needing of wiring tapping?

So you're comfortable with a Democratic President, backed by party control of the Legislative Branch, having these powers to target those he considers to be enemies of the United States?

Not just "enemies of the state", but his own personal political enemies as well. A government that can spy on anyone with no oversight whatsoever can do all kinds of mischief. It may not matter if poor shlubs like us posting on here are eavesdropped on, but someone like a reporter or another elected official who might have info that the powers-that-be would consider "inconvenient"....

 

[Polk]

And that was in the 50s!!!!!!! The 50s!!!!

Just imagine how much we've moved in just 50 years!

Yeah, to the right.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

What freedom exactly do you lose on the off chance you were someone who was deemed needing of wiring tapping?

So you're comfortable with a Democratic President, backed by party control of the Legislative Branch, having these powers to target those he considers to be enemies of the United States?

Not just "enemies of the state", but his own personal political enemies as well. A government that can spy on anyone with no oversight whatsoever can do all kinds of mischief. It may not matter if poor shlubs like us posting on here are eavesdropped on, but someone like a reporter or another elected official who might have info that the powers-that-be would consider "inconvenient"....

Warrantless wiretapping and the Patriot Act are the true litmus test for whether a person is a true small government Conservative or a more authoritative Neo-Con. The fact that Rush, Sean, Beck, and Coulter have all spent air time defending Republican legislation that has led to the most powerful Democrat Presidency in multiple generations exposes them as short sighted Neo-Cons.

We've been lucky so far. The Patriot Act, DHS, and other legislation pushed after 9/11 have the potential to truly undercut our Democracy and squelch political opposition. That they have yet to be used in a blatantly political way has to be God's intervention in the face of Man's stupidity. Nothing else explains it.

 

[EriktheRed]

We've been lucky so far. The Patriot Act, DHS, and other legislation pushed after 9/11 have the potential to truly undercut our Democracy and squelch political opposition. That they have yet to be used in a blatantly political way has to be God's intervention in the face of Man's stupidity. Nothing else explains it.

Not to sound like a conspiracy nut, but....






...how do we know this legisalation hasn't been used in a political way already?

 

[Polk]

They've been used against political opponents. They just haven't been used on a wide scale.

 

[Bern80]

Most people have not "maxed out" their potential, but of course what "maxing out" your potential even means is questionable as people have a lot of different responsibilities and goals, not all of which are compatible.

Yes people have many goals. What right do you have to complain about the people who pursued goals congruent with wealth attainment? Some goals obviously are not congruent with wealth attainment. But if your goal is to be a teacher, along with that you need to accept that you probably aren't going to be filthy rich.

My point is that the "Atlas" figures of Rand's book aren't heroes. They're selfish jerks that profited from the society they then choose to abandon. That's ultimately the failure of objectivism. It fails to acknowledge that the individual's success is often built upon the scientific, economic, and social advances that came before and the acceptance, in either a scholastic or monetary form, of their work on the part of the world around them.

I would say then that you didn't read the book very well. Because apparently what you missed were the expectations that society put on them. They expected from the likes of Rearden what they would not expect of themselves. The society expected to be simply given what the 'heroes' had to work for and build on their own.

Your 'no man is an island' argument is one made by many and is extremely faulty. If all they did was gain wealth off the work of others, as if that's all it takes, why aren't more people wealthy? You're not so naive or disingenuous as to think more people would be if not for their righteous souls are you? As with any successful business operator the characters found a product or service that was in demand and found they most efficient way to deliver. Would that require hiring man power to meet demand? Of course. By doing so, by building a business they are supplying a demand that would otherwise go unfilled. So why are they not entitled to the profits of building that business?

Saying 'they did it on the back of others' is disingenuous as well. It implies the business owner sits back while his workers slave to make them money. Also not true. When you sign on to work for someone you agree to their terms. If you don't like the pay you don't work for them, simple as that. Either someone else works for them instead, or they are forced to improve compensation until someone will. You of course will say some people just don't have a choice. Again typical lib selling people short and making excuses for them. They're is ALWAYS a choice.

The characters in the book founded their own society because they were tired of whiners like yourself who don't know aspect one of running a business. People that assume business owners sit on couches doing nothing while the money rolls in thinking they are entitled to the same because they don't know jack shit about the choices their boss has to make day in and day out to keep all of the cogs in the wheel spinning smoothly. They left because not only did people feel they were entitled to what they worked for and built. They left because people like you were not only unappreciative of it, you condemn them for it.

 

[Oddball]

And that was in the 50s!!!!!!! The 50s!!!!

Just imagine how much we've moved in just 50 years!

Yeah, to the right.

Yeah....Medicare, Medicaid, the Great Society, food stamps, farm and corporate subsidies, wage and price controls, the creation of several cabinet-level bureaucracies, the illegal wars in Korea, Vietnam, et al, the idiotic "war" on (some) drugs, are all soooooooooo far right wing.

You've always been a raving Negative Nancy, but now you've moved on to total nutburger land.

 

[Polk]

And that was in the 50s!!!!!!! The 50s!!!!

Just imagine how much we've moved in just 50 years!

Yeah, to the right.

Yeah....Medicare, Medicaid, the Great Society, food stamps, farm and corporate subsidies, wage and price controls, the creation of several cabinet-level bureaucracies, the illegal wars in Korea, Vietnam, et al, the idiotic "war" on (some) drugs, are all soooooooooo far right wing.

You've always been a raving Negative Nancy, but now you've moved on to total nutburger land.

Bread and circuses.
In 1960, we had a president from the right-wing party talking about the dangers of military and industrial influence on society. Today, you won't find that argument being made on the right. Hell, you'd barely find it on the left.
In 1972, the right-wing party included a position for guaranteed minimum income in their platform. Today, you'd be hardpressed to find anyone outside of the furthest left calling for it.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Your 'no man is an island' argument is one made by many and is extremely faulty.

Arguing against interdependency while you post on an internet built, maintained, and made possible by the largest collaborative human effort in history is incredibly ironic.

Past that, the rest of your argument is a strawman. Of course people have to work hard to succeed. What is missed entirely by those that support the Objectivist view point is that while success is dependent on your own work ethic, the level of success you can obtain is dependent on the world around you.

For example: Take the original crop of NASA Astronauts. If you've never met one, they are impressive folks. Many hold multiple advanced science and engineering degrees and even at their advanced age, many are in better physical shape than the average American.

Put an Astronaut on a deserted island. They'll do pretty well for themselves. They're smart, resiliant, in peak physical shape, and pretty crafty. But will the Astronaut ever get into space on their own?

The answer is no. Something like the space program is dependent on the hard work and engineering know how of a large group of individuals. Its financed and put together by an enormuous public effort.

The same argument applies to the theoretical Titans. Without the existing educational know how, Civil Rights structure, market apparatus, and yes, workers, they're just people. They're Titans because they work hard and enjoy the support and success that is possible because of the society they live in. In Rand's story they're not heroes. They abandon their life work, the loyal employees that toiled for them, and society as a whole because they felt cheated of their success... in short they duck the responsibilities to the society that helped make their success possible.

Coming full circle, that's why the quote:

'There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: “The Lord of the Rings” and “Atlas Shrugged.” One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

Is actually quite appropriate. The "I don't need anyone" argument is something that a rebelling teenager says to his parent. It is an immature argument that one should outgrow.

 

[Oddball]

Bread and circuses.
In 1960, we had a president from the right-wing party talking about the dangers of military and industrial influence on society. Today, you won't find that argument being made on the right. Hell, you'd barely find it on the left.
In 1972, the right-wing party included a position for guaranteed minimum income in their platform. Today, you'd be hardpressed to find anyone outside of the furthest left calling for it.

First of all, Eisenhower was one of those middling squishy "moderates" that leftist nutters like you are so enamored of, not a right-winger..

Secondly, the military-industrial complex was furthered by Fabian socialists JFK and LBJ at least as much, if not more so, than it was by alleged far-righty Reagan.

And if you're going to try and pimp Nixon off as a far-righty, you're even more far gone into nutburger la-la land than I had imagined.

 

[Polk]

You missed the point re: Nixon. If someone was considered to be a mainstream idea on the right forty years ago, but is considered to be radically leftist today, that's strong evidence the political system as a whole as moved to the right.

 

[Oddball]

Except that Nixon wasn't considered mainstream...He was considered a huge sellout to the left.

In fact, he was a bigger appeaser and enabler of leftists than Shrubbie was.

Try again.

 

[Polk]

No, you consider him a huge saleout to the left because anything short of disbanding the government is communism in your mind.