4 ms·

Ayn Rand’s books have a cult following, tied closely to a specific political ideology and resonating with aspects of American national identity, particularly it

by kubb 2y ago

Ayn Rand’s books have a cult following, tied closely to a specific political ideology and resonating with aspects of American national identity, particularly its celebration of individualism. However, they present a naive vision of the world, lacking nuance when it comes to morality and human complexity. Human flaws are conveniently absent in her protagonists, while the antagonists are comically incompetent and stupid. The greatest flaw, to me, is that the triumphs of her characters rely on a world constructed entirely within the books - a world of perfect meritocracy where individual brilliance overcomes all. This creates a circular argument: the virtues the books champion succeed only within the fabricated conditions of Rand's universe, making their application to the real world highly questionable.

skellington 2y ago
Kind of like Marxist books that work in a hypothetical universe? Marx and Rand exist as reactions to the perceived problems of their days, but they shouldn't be taken as recipes for utopia. Ironically, both philosophies depend on everyone in the system being perfectly altruistic. Any 'bad' actors poison their systems and turn them into horrible dystopias.
- kubb 2y ago
  This is a misunderstanding of both Rand and Marx: Rand’s philosophy doesn't depend on altruism - in fact it explicitly rejects altruism as a virtue, focusing on rational self-interest as the driving force of progress. This is of course attractive and expedient to certain political forces, especially in the USA. Marxist systems also don't depend on altruism. Marx was considering how material interests drive behavior, how systemic change can reshape incentives, and was also relying on ideas like class consciousness, and solidarity. He also didn't need to create a fantasy world for his ideas to work, instead he was basing his theories on analysis of the existing economic conditions during his lifetime. If you're thinking of ideological systems that do rely on altruism, you should look towards religions, like Christianity or Buddhism, or philosophies like Communitarianism. There were fringe utopian socialist thinkers who advocated for altruism-based systems (Fourier, Owen) but they were opposed both by Capitalists and Marxists.
  - skellington 2y ago
    I'm not saying that Rand or Marx themselves said that altruism was a necessary component. I'm saying that it is and that neither was aware of that pre-condition/axiom of their philosophies. To be fair, I think Rand was aware, and that she wrote fantasies around what she viewed as the 'perfect man.' Her stuff is more aspirational than practical (same as Lenin, etc.). From a game theory point of view, both philosophies, in order to work and be sustained, require that most actors within the system behave honestly within the rules of the game. This means, nobody cheats. And it would only take a small percentage of bad actors to break either system. In this context, altruism is self policing to abide by the rules even when not abiding by the rules would be better for you. PS I also disagree with your take on religion, if anything, Christianity's (for example) primary philosophy is built around the explicit imperfection of mankind. Also, I would argue that the Utopian Socialists and Lenin were aligned in their goals. They just had different ideas of how to get there. There have been many attempts at the gentler Utopian Socialist version of communism over the years and AFAIK they all fall apart after a while, because people are not altruistic.
george_1776 2y ago
Objectivists, followers of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism, do not support MAGA. Have you listed to the Yaron Brook podcast? To suggest meritocracy and individualism only work in fictional, fabricated conditions is bizarre. Have you noticed the success of the United States? Hang Kong? There is strong historical case to be made that a country’s prosperity is directly linked to its rule of law and political freedom, conditions which in turn lead to meritocracy.
- kubb 2y ago
  I didn’t mention MAGA, you must have spuriously inserted it. There isn’t enough time or space here to discuss how history of the US or Hong Kong can be interpreted. It’s a humongous subject. Let’s just say there are more factors than you’ve listed. The claim that America is a meritocracy is easier to deal with. Try being born in a trailer park with crackhead parents (extreme example; see statistics on how upbringing influences outcomes).
  - george_1776 2y ago
    Glad to know you weren’t tying Ayn Rand to MAGA. Her political ideology is massively at odds with the modern Republican party, though they do try to claim her. Regarding trailer parks, or people born into bad situations generally, I don’t think the fact that the disadvantaged are in fact disadvantaged is a refutation of meritocracy. A country that protects individual rights and objective rule of law empowers individuals to choose where to work or who to hire or how to spend their time and money based on their judgment of the merits. This doesn’t guarantee equal starting points or equal outcomes. It does, over time and in aggregate lead to prosperity.

by kubb 2y ago

skellington 2y ago

Kind of like Marxist books that work in a hypothetical universe? Marx and Rand exist as reactions to the perceived problems of their days, but they shouldn't be taken as recipes for utopia. Ironically, both philosophies depend on everyone in the system being perfectly altruistic. Any 'bad' actors poison their systems and turn them into horrible dystopias.

kubb 2y ago
This is a misunderstanding of both Rand and Marx: Rand’s philosophy doesn't depend on altruism - in fact it explicitly rejects altruism as a virtue, focusing on rational self-interest as the driving force of progress. This is of course attractive and expedient to certain political forces, especially in the USA. Marxist systems also don't depend on altruism. Marx was considering how material interests drive behavior, how systemic change can reshape incentives, and was also relying on ideas like class consciousness, and solidarity. He also didn't need to create a fantasy world for his ideas to work, instead he was basing his theories on analysis of the existing economic conditions during his lifetime. If you're thinking of ideological systems that do rely on altruism, you should look towards religions, like Christianity or Buddhism, or philosophies like Communitarianism. There were fringe utopian socialist thinkers who advocated for altruism-based systems (Fourier, Owen) but they were opposed both by Capitalists and Marxists.
- skellington 2y ago
  I'm not saying that Rand or Marx themselves said that altruism was a necessary component. I'm saying that it is and that neither was aware of that pre-condition/axiom of their philosophies. To be fair, I think Rand was aware, and that she wrote fantasies around what she viewed as the 'perfect man.' Her stuff is more aspirational than practical (same as Lenin, etc.). From a game theory point of view, both philosophies, in order to work and be sustained, require that most actors within the system behave honestly within the rules of the game. This means, nobody cheats. And it would only take a small percentage of bad actors to break either system. In this context, altruism is self policing to abide by the rules even when not abiding by the rules would be better for you. PS I also disagree with your take on religion, if anything, Christianity's (for example) primary philosophy is built around the explicit imperfection of mankind. Also, I would argue that the Utopian Socialists and Lenin were aligned in their goals. They just had different ideas of how to get there. There have been many attempts at the gentler Utopian Socialist version of communism over the years and AFAIK they all fall apart after a while, because people are not altruistic.

george_1776 2y ago

Objectivists, followers of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism, do not support MAGA. Have you listed to the Yaron Brook podcast? To suggest meritocracy and individualism only work in fictional, fabricated conditions is bizarre. Have you noticed the success of the United States? Hang Kong? There is strong historical case to be made that a country’s prosperity is directly linked to its rule of law and political freedom, conditions which in turn lead to meritocracy.

kubb 2y ago
I didn’t mention MAGA, you must have spuriously inserted it. There isn’t enough time or space here to discuss how history of the US or Hong Kong can be interpreted. It’s a humongous subject. Let’s just say there are more factors than you’ve listed. The claim that America is a meritocracy is easier to deal with. Try being born in a trailer park with crackhead parents (extreme example; see statistics on how upbringing influences outcomes).
- george_1776 2y ago
  Glad to know you weren’t tying Ayn Rand to MAGA. Her political ideology is massively at odds with the modern Republican party, though they do try to claim her. Regarding trailer parks, or people born into bad situations generally, I don’t think the fact that the disadvantaged are in fact disadvantaged is a refutation of meritocracy. A country that protects individual rights and objective rule of law empowers individuals to choose where to work or who to hire or how to spend their time and money based on their judgment of the merits. This doesn’t guarantee equal starting points or equal outcomes. It does, over time and in aggregate lead to prosperity.