4 ms·

Ayn Rand was opposed to the labor theory of value, which is a central tenant of Marxism.

by jfarmer 18y ago

ojbyrne 18y ago
While I'm not a marxist, I think she goes too far in her opposition to this. All of the protagonists are capitalists (mostly with inherited money) and those who actually work to advance the cause of the "great men" - i.e. Eddie Willers - are given short shrift, and little chance to advance. Instead we have great men with inherited fortunes, doing very little actual work, preferring whining about "looters" and in one case (Hank Rearden) spending a month flying a plane over the Rockies looking for another great person.
- dualogy 18y ago
  "who actually work to advance the cause of the 'great men' - i.e. Eddie Willers - are given short shrift, and little chance to advance" That's because he's never advancing much by himself beyond that which he is 'given'. Eddie is definitely an interesting character in the book. Like the 'man of not so great ambition' who still knows that he will, materially and spiritually, be better off by not looting those who made their fortunes exclusively through voluntary exchanges of their own successful products, efforts and work. Yeah, in the book he lacks their talent but shares their code of value. He's like the character introduced just so that you can't complain 'there's only great men in this book, how unrealistic'.
  - ojbyrne 18y ago
    How does he "lack their talent?" I see little talent on display. Though perhaps that's Rand's poor writing ability - not much is ever described to the reader, she just says "talented" or "great" about her protagonists, and expects us to accept it.
    - dualogy 18y ago
      It's a work of fiction, by the way. But each of the characters has their own sets of talents and strengths and they are described rather than asserted throughout the book. The question of whether these descriptions are 'true' is quite pointless in an entirely fictional setting. > not much is ever described to the reader > she just says "talented" or "great" about > her protagonists It's only fair to say you failed to sum up these 1000 pages accurately.
      - ojbyrne 18y ago
        It's not the best written work of fiction, by the way. I'm around page 900 or so, and most of it seems to be thinly disguised rants by the author, interspersed with laughable descriptions of sex, and a really nasty strain of Social Darwinism. If this had been written by a German in 1934 it would probably be recognized as thinly disguised National Socialist Party propaganda.
        dualogy 18y ago
        That's a pretty silly thing to say. The prose may not suit your literary tastes, fine. But you will still agree that the Nazis and the Soviets were both the real templates for her 'evil collectivists'. And collectivists they were, not just in their party name ('national socialists'). They more or less nationalized most of Germany's industrial private properties, some of it sooner, the rest of it later. They implemented most bullet points of the Communist Manifesto, only in a brown flavour and with a lot of add-on horrors on top of it. Yeah, her 'heroic romanticism' style may resemble some of the red and brown 'romantic' literature. But her content is vastly opposed to theirs. If anything, she took a style that appealed to the masses in the 30s and 40s (including America) and showed that the same devices can be used to convey the opposite message, radical individualism and libertarian capitalism.
turkishrevenge 18y ago
I would like to see how she would explain commodity valorization. If she does not subscribe to the Labor Theory of Value, how is that extra value imparted, if not from the labor (variable) acting on constant capital? It's a mistake to attribute it all to money. Even she say money is an expression of this value.
- randallsquared 18y ago
  > how is that extra value imparted, if not from the labor (variable) acting on constant capital? It depends on the value and the valuer. A thing's value and the labor spent on it are not intrinsically related at all: a wild flower may be very valuable to someone while having required no labor at all. Similarly, digging a hole in your back yard does not automatically increase the value of your property; the labor has no value of its own. Value is entirely subjective, and can only be measured or assigned by people.

Ayn Rand was opposed to the labor theory of value, which is a central tenant of Marxism.

by jfarmer 18y ago

Ayn Rand was opposed to the labor theory of value, which is a central tenant of Marxism.

While I'm not a marxist, I think she goes too far in her opposition to this. All of the protagonists are capitalists (mostly with inherited money) and those who actually work to advance the cause of the "great men" - i.e. Eddie Willers - are given short shrift, and little chance to advance. Instead we have great men with inherited fortunes, doing very little actual work, preferring whining about "looters" and in one case (Hank Rearden) spending a month flying a plane over the Rockies looking for another great person.

dualogy 18y ago
"who actually work to advance the cause of the 'great men' - i.e. Eddie Willers - are given short shrift, and little chance to advance" That's because he's never advancing much by himself beyond that which he is 'given'. Eddie is definitely an interesting character in the book. Like the 'man of not so great ambition' who still knows that he will, materially and spiritually, be better off by not looting those who made their fortunes exclusively through voluntary exchanges of their own successful products, efforts and work. Yeah, in the book he lacks their talent but shares their code of value. He's like the character introduced just so that you can't complain 'there's only great men in this book, how unrealistic'.
- ojbyrne 18y ago
  How does he "lack their talent?" I see little talent on display. Though perhaps that's Rand's poor writing ability - not much is ever described to the reader, she just says "talented" or "great" about her protagonists, and expects us to accept it.
  - dualogy 18y ago
    It's a work of fiction, by the way. But each of the characters has their own sets of talents and strengths and they are described rather than asserted throughout the book. The question of whether these descriptions are 'true' is quite pointless in an entirely fictional setting. > not much is ever described to the reader > she just says "talented" or "great" about > her protagonists It's only fair to say you failed to sum up these 1000 pages accurately.
    - ojbyrne 18y ago
      It's not the best written work of fiction, by the way. I'm around page 900 or so, and most of it seems to be thinly disguised rants by the author, interspersed with laughable descriptions of sex, and a really nasty strain of Social Darwinism. If this had been written by a German in 1934 it would probably be recognized as thinly disguised National Socialist Party propaganda.
      - dualogy 18y ago
        That's a pretty silly thing to say. The prose may not suit your literary tastes, fine. But you will still agree that the Nazis and the Soviets were both the real templates for her 'evil collectivists'. And collectivists they were, not just in their party name ('national socialists'). They more or less nationalized most of Germany's industrial private properties, some of it sooner, the rest of it later. They implemented most bullet points of the Communist Manifesto, only in a brown flavour and with a lot of add-on horrors on top of it. Yeah, her 'heroic romanticism' style may resemble some of the red and brown 'romantic' literature. But her content is vastly opposed to theirs. If anything, she took a style that appealed to the masses in the 30s and 40s (including America) and showed that the same devices can be used to convey the opposite message, radical individualism and libertarian capitalism.

turkishrevenge 18y ago

I would like to see how she would explain commodity valorization. If she does not subscribe to the Labor Theory of Value, how is that extra value imparted, if not from the labor (variable) acting on constant capital? It's a mistake to attribute it all to money. Even she say money is an expression of this value.

randallsquared 18y ago
> how is that extra value imparted, if not from the labor (variable) acting on constant capital? It depends on the value and the valuer. A thing's value and the labor spent on it are not intrinsically related at all: a wild flower may be very valuable to someone while having required no labor at all. Similarly, digging a hole in your back yard does not automatically increase the value of your property; the labor has no value of its own. Value is entirely subjective, and can only be measured or assigned by people.