naked capitalism

Jojo says:

Bah! We don’t need more Ayn Rand pap. In contrast, I’ll submit:

Stephen Colbert and the “Rand Illusion”
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/221335/march-11-2009/the-word–rand-illusion

—AND—

THE UNLIKELIEST CULT IN HISTORY
http://www.2think.org/02_2_she.shtml

purple says:

Rand is popular (particularly with the adolescent set), because the reader can imagine they are the SuperMan who is being frustrated by the ignorant masses. Her novels feed a certain level of narcissism ; we all identify with the genius protagonist. But this is strange considering the context of her novels, that the masses cannot understand genius.

Most of us grow out of the Rand phase, but some do not.

Melanchthon says:

Well, Ayn Rand’s influence is limited to the United States. She’s almost unknown in most European countries…

In Hell's Kitchen says:

Rand’s “philosophy” is conclusively shown to be a fraud in Nyquist’s
book discussed here:

http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/

Jesse says:

I think we are entering the ‘hysteria’ phase, in which scapegoats are sought and delivered by those inside the fraud which caused the crisis to deflect their own guilt.

Those who have lost money are looking for retribution, and those who seek power feed the mob. We have some way to go yet, before they start burning books. And if there is no reform, no justice, then the madness returns.

And you will never believe it until it has taken a firm grasp of your hands.

itzybitter says:

The common threads between Rand, libertarianism, and neoliberalism are what interest me. I can best characterize it both as glorification of the omnipotent adolescent, with the attendant struggle with human grief, the acceptance of the necessary life losses. At its heart is deep and dysfunctional pathology.

Cynicism is one of its most obvious manifestations, the inability to emotionally deal with our ultimate fragility. The libertarian thus must define the terms of every engagement, vainly seeking to empower himself.

Froggy says:

Ayn Rand is a starting point for a framework of libertarian thought. Her philosophies are unimplementable and fantastical, but she properly constructs and characterizes (if hyperbolicaly) the agents at work in an ideal free capitalist society. She does however, miss a key element and protagonist in her theory, the moral person. Rand is amoral and coldly calculating and humans are not this way and could therefore never create or live in Galt’s Gulch. Her expositions on bureaucrats and government are on balance quite adept. Their false motives of altruism (which gives her amorality its structure) used to “loot” are the visages that we see today in Obamacare et al. It is that kernel of her vision that did come true. She could never see people for what they were as individuals, but she could see organizations with perfect clarity.

The Barefoot Bum says:

“I don’t understand why it has to be either-or with Rand.”

It doesn’t *have* to be either-or, it just happens to be the case that Rand is either trivial or completely wrong.

“[Rand] made brilliant, prophetic points about government. Credit where credit is due.”

Seriously? Name one. Having read a considerable amount of her work, I’ve yet to stumble on any brilliant prophetic points about anything, much less government. It is, however, possible I’ve missed something.

“Objectivism and Atlas Shrugged is an incomplete and partly flawed defense of the concept that the nature of man is to yearn to be free.”

It boggles my mind that anyone could read Atlas Shrugged and come away with the image of Hank Rearden, Dagny Taggart or John Galt groaning under the lash of their brutal oppressor.

Rand’s work in a defense of the concept that the nature of the *superior* man is to be free from the presence of the inferior man. The characters in Atlas Shrugged are not rebelling against any form of enslavement; they rebel only against having to share their air with lesser men, and the only remedy is to literally kill them all leaving a pure whi… er… capitalist paradise.

“Like any person’s work, it does not represent the alpha and the omega.”

I believe Rand would have disagreed with you on this evaluation of her work.

“A lot of the trashing of Rand seems unnecessary and inaccurate.”

Seems? Who cares how things *seem*. Is any trashing *actually* unnecessary? Is any *actually* inaccurate?

sherparick says:

Rand’s ideas have really do influence are current elite (just read the Washington Post’s editorial page). It is why Wall Streeters feel no guilt about their huge, rent-seeking bonuses while official unemployment is at 10%. Whether they have read the books are not, as Keyness said, their heads are filled with ideas of a long dead, half-baked, writer.

By the way, James Hill was a remarkable, if flawd, man who actually built and created wealth, in the 19th century, as opposed to today’s wealth destroyers. But even he got some Government help, if not for the Great Northern, then for the railroad that became the Great Northern, the St. Paul and Pacific. “It connected with a Canadian Pacific branch from Fort Garry at St. Vincent, Minnesota in 1879. Canadian Pacific’s transcontinental route was not completed yet so all traffic through Fort Garry had to use Hill’s route. Hill received two million acres of land in the Minnesota Land Grant for completing the rail line on time.”

Stephanie says:

Have not read Atlas Shrugged. Did read The Fountainhead, at the age of 14. Have not re-read it since. My impression at the time was that Roark seemed like a crappy businessman. Of course, in my mind the point of business being, I thought, to provide goods and services for which people were willing to pay, NOT to force one’s artistic vision on customers and then whine when said customers didn’t appreciate it. At least, I couldn’t imagine how anyone would make money doing the later… and as I recall, Roark didn’t (please correct me if I’m wrong) — but this was supposed to be some kind of tragedy of the system, not an indictment of Roark’s narcissism. Maybe that was because Rand was able to successfully substitute narcissism for salesmanship in her own life?

MonkeyMuffins says:

1) “Rand’s influence lives on in her book and also in the watered down elements of her libertarian philosophy that has penetrated liberal political thinking.”

Should read:

“Rand’s influence lives on in her book and also in the watered down elements of her libertarian philosophy that have penetrated liberal political thinking”

2) In High School I loved Rand and Rush; then I grew up.

–

We live at the end of empire, during the century of contraction, in a culture of make believe.
We are not going to grow, consume and indebt our way out of the problems of growth, consumption and debt.