4 ms·

Gore Vidal wrote my favorite summation of Ayn Rand: This odd little woman is attempting to give a moral sanction to greed and self interest, and to pull it o

Gore Vidal wrote my favorite summation of Ayn Rand: This odd little woman is attempting to give a moral sanction to greed and self interest, and to pull it off she must at times indulge in purest Orwellian newspeak of the "freedom is slavery" sort. What interests me most about her is not the absurdity of her "philosophy," but the size of her audience (in my campaign for the House she was the one writer people knew and talked about). She has a great attraction for simple people who are puzzled by organized society, who object to paying taxes, who dislike the "welfare" state, who feel guilt at the thought of the suffering of others but who would like to harden their hearts. For them, she has an enticing prescription: altruism is the root of all evil, self-interest is the only good, and if you're dumb or incompetent that's your lookout. …For to justify and extol human greed and egotism is to my mind not only immoral, but evil. For one thing, it is gratuitous to advise any human being to look out for himself. You can be sure that he will. It is far more difficult to persuade him to help his neighbor to build a dam or to defend a town or to give food he has accumulated to the victims of a famine. But since we must live together, dependent upon one another for many things and services, altruism is necessary to survival. To get people to do needed things is the perennial hard task of government, not to mention of religion and philosophy. That it is right to help someone less fortunate is an idea which ahs figured in most systems of conduct since the beginning of the race. We often fail. That predatory demon "I" is difficult to contain but until now we have all agreed that to help others is a right action. … Both Marx and Christ agree that in this life a right action is consideration for the welfare of others. In the one case, through a state which was to wither away, in the other through the private exercise of the moral sense. Miss Rand now tells us that what we have thought was right is really wrong. The lesson should have read: One for one and none for all. https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a4595/comment-0761/ https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a4595/comment-0761/

tinglymintyfrsh 4y ago
There's a good reason Julian Assange was dragged out of the Ecuadorian embassy holding "History of the National Security State". If we don't live for others, he who dies with most toys still wins a lonely, meaningless death. I believe Ayn had a chip on her shoulder from growing up in the Soviet Union and took an extremist contrarian view rather than a moderate one. Extremism is often what catapults people into fame. "There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party...and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt - until recently... and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties." -G.V.
- jfengel 4y ago
  I'd only note that the Vidal quote is from 1975. Much has happened since then. To oversimplify (as he does), I'd say that both parties leaned very hard into his descriptions of them. They've exchanged members and eliminated nearly all of the overlap. So much so that I'd deny that they are really "one party", if they ever were.
theGnuMe 4y ago
I remember the early days of Hacker News (different account) where Ayn Rand was praised to high heavens. Libertarianism ad nauseum.
- jfengel 4y ago
  It strikes me as still true. Does it not to you?
raxxorraxor 4y ago
Meh, I don't believe this is good criticism, actually the author would find himself in the middle of the people who he derides so colorfully. He just doesn't understand their perspective. And not that of Ayn Rand either, who grew up in Russia. She certainly has an extreme position. This is very relevant context. We currently live in such a system. Nobody is only egoistic or altruistic. > To get people to do needed things is the perennial hard task of government, not to mention of religion and philosophy Not really and this is not how the world works and the author criticizes her in the background of a different definition of altruism. She is no prophet or anything, but I believe it is worth reading about her perspective. I disagree that altruism needs to be self-sacrifice, it most often is not, but this is how Rand defines it. There are cultures that practice quite direct self-sacrifice if they failed others. Can such a person be kind to others if they fail to be kind to themselves? Why do you need to love yourself so you can love others? > Miss Rand now tells us that what we have thought was right is really wrong. It is probably always wrong for everyone, including Rand. Not a Rand fan at all for that matter, she wasn't a too popular author in my country, I think this is mainly a US phenomenon. I think this is relevant too.

tinglymintyfrsh 4y ago

There's a good reason Julian Assange was dragged out of the Ecuadorian embassy holding "History of the National Security State". If we don't live for others, he who dies with most toys still wins a lonely, meaningless death. I believe Ayn had a chip on her shoulder from growing up in the Soviet Union and took an extremist contrarian view rather than a moderate one. Extremism is often what catapults people into fame. "There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party...and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt - until recently... and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties." -G.V.

jfengel 4y ago
I'd only note that the Vidal quote is from 1975. Much has happened since then. To oversimplify (as he does), I'd say that both parties leaned very hard into his descriptions of them. They've exchanged members and eliminated nearly all of the overlap. So much so that I'd deny that they are really "one party", if they ever were.

theGnuMe 4y ago

I remember the early days of Hacker News (different account) where Ayn Rand was praised to high heavens. Libertarianism ad nauseum.

jfengel 4y ago
It strikes me as still true. Does it not to you?

raxxorraxor 4y ago

Meh, I don't believe this is good criticism, actually the author would find himself in the middle of the people who he derides so colorfully. He just doesn't understand their perspective. And not that of Ayn Rand either, who grew up in Russia. She certainly has an extreme position. This is very relevant context. We currently live in such a system. Nobody is only egoistic or altruistic. > To get people to do needed things is the perennial hard task of government, not to mention of religion and philosophy Not really and this is not how the world works and the author criticizes her in the background of a different definition of altruism. She is no prophet or anything, but I believe it is worth reading about her perspective. I disagree that altruism needs to be self-sacrifice, it most often is not, but this is how Rand defines it. There are cultures that practice quite direct self-sacrifice if they failed others. Can such a person be kind to others if they fail to be kind to themselves? Why do you need to love yourself so you can love others? > Miss Rand now tells us that what we have thought was right is really wrong. It is probably always wrong for everyone, including Rand. Not a Rand fan at all for that matter, she wasn't a too popular author in my country, I think this is mainly a US phenomenon. I think this is relevant too.