John Oliver goes to far. Attacks Ayn Rand

[FenerFan]

I, for one, would happily take a handjob while listening to "A Message to You Rudy."

 

[Spindrift]

As if you've actually read the entirety of John Gault's speech.

A friend was reading Atlas Shrugged over the summer. I asked if he'd gotten to the speech yet. He said "What speech". I told him it was over 50 pages long and he just laughed. I saw him about a week later and he said, "I thought you were kidding about the speech. It was so long, I just couldn't read the whole thing."

 

[Unabogie]

But does it have any novel useful ideas? It's not like she was the first critic of communism the world ever saw, and she was very far from the best.

The problem with Rand, as a philosophaster, is one that she shares with many others that go down that path. When she's right, she's thoroughly derivative (but seems incapable of recognizing that), and when she's wrong, she's crashingly wrong. It's a shame that so much ink has been spilled in her name.

I'll try, but I'm certainly no expert in philosophy.

Like the stereotype, I got really into Ayn Rand when I was 17 or so. At the time I read all of her books, but I haven't touched them since, so my memory is pretty hazy on the plots. But from what I remember, her books, especially The Fountainhead, celebrated human genius.

One of the people Roark encounters who earns his respect was a welder, but he was a master welder. So the idea was that people who did their chosen work extremely well, no matter how dirty the job, were heroes.

She talked about, in that interminable Galt speech, how money was an exchange of human value. I do something for you which you value, so you give me your value in return. That's an idea that still rings true to me.

She also championed the idea that art for art's sake was virtuous, and that public acclaim and artistic merit weren't synonymous.

Although just writing those two paragraphs together makes me see the contradiction. If money is just a reflection of the intrinsic value of your work, then isn't popular art, by definition, better, simply because other people will trade their value for it? But I digress.

I think her work is as riddled with contradictions as her life was. But there are some nuggets in there worth discussing. Her problem was she was just so damn smug and nasty about it all.

 

[I Ratant]

Agreed. Humans are varied and our nature is contradictory. The idea that there is some single economic principle or concept that reconciles moral dilemma or largely solves the problems of poverty or inequality of opportunity is a fantasy.

.
I recall on our visit to East Berlin in 1952 noting the lack of creature comforts there. Like even the basic bicycle which was all over West Germany..not a one.
The lack of such simple devices in a communist country was notable, when compared to the capitalist of the west.
Going to Budapest in 1960, their lot had improved a bit, there were bicycles, but few private automobiles. Mostly taxis on the streets.
They went westenized not long after that, and my brother went there in 1964 and noticed most of the things the west had were there by then.
Poverty in capitalism is bound to be better than in communism.

 

[ponderingturtle]

.
I recall on our visit to East Berlin in 1952 noting the lack of creature comforts there. Like even the basic bicycle which was all over West Germany..not a one.
The lack of such simple devices in a communist country was notable, when compared to the capitalist of the west.
Going to Budapest in 1960, their lot had improved a bit, there were bicycles, but few private automobiles. Mostly taxis on the streets.
They went westenized not long after that, and my brother went there in 1964 and noticed most of the things the west had were there by then.
Poverty in capitalism is bound to be better than in communism.

Depends on too many factors. I think you might have a hard time making that argument in the early industrial revolution. I Mean it is just cheaper to get new kids to clear the jams out of the machines when these get mangled than turn the machines off after all.

 

[ravdin]

There's an old joke that if the Soviet Union had been established in the Sahara, there would now be a shortage of sand.

In a similar vein, the socialist planners in Venezuela say that they will have to import oil.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/08/27/oil-venezuela-imports-idUKL1N0QX1JJ20140827

 

[MontagK505]

Depends on too many factors. I think you might have a hard time making that argument in the early industrial revolution. I Mean it is just cheaper to get new kids to clear the jams out of the machines when these get mangled than turn the machines off after all.

Good point. But then compare that with poverty prior to the rise of capitalism.

 

[MontagK505]

These are fair points IMO. Rand was not a rigorous philosopher (I try to avoid the use of that title with her). Her ideas were shallow and derivative. I credit her not for pioneering but for defending an important precept at a time of seemingly growing communist influence.

That said, I honestly don't know if Rand hurt society more than she helped. As I said before, it would be a bit grand to suggest that America was in danger of becoming socialist (nationalizing industry) much less so called communist.

I think her major positive influence was to encourage people to think of their own lives as something of intrinsic value, rather than economic cannon-fodder for the benefit of the "glorious masses". When someone speaks of social sacrifice, someone is collecting those sacrificial offerings. Communism is a perfect example
of a state religion with the dictatorship of the proletariat is substituted for God.

 

[MontagK505]

My main problem with Rand is that she was a lousy writer.

Subjective opinion of course. I've read one of Dan Browns novels (Deception Point-gag) I think he is a far worse writer, but Dan is much more popular.

 

[Hellbound]

I've read one of Dan Browns novels...

Then you've read his entire works (thay all recycle the same plot...it's like Mad Libs-the Novel).

ETA: Every Dan Brown novel ever:
Main Character 1(MC1): I know a lot about this group, and I suspect a conspiracy.
Main Character 2(MC2): I'm skeptical, but I'll go along for now
Mentor of MC1(Mentor): I believe in you, MC1, and I'll help you out where I can, but I'm going out on a limb here.
MC1: Oh no, someone tried to kill us when we looked into it, and we barely managed to escape in a totally unbelievable and physically impossible way! We're on to something! Let's go to Place for more research!
MC2: I think I believe you now, let's smooch!
MC1 (at Place): Ah! A clue! I've unraveled the conspiracy!
Mentor (taking off Ghost Witch Werewolf Indian Chief of the Black Lagoon mask): Aha! No you haven't, you've played into my hands! I've been behind it all along! Now to get rid of you meddling kids!
2XMachine: *stomps Mentor* No, you lose. MC1 wins.
MC1 and MC2: Yeah! *smooch*.

 

[MontagK505]

Well that would exlain why so many conservatives love her.

I've met conservatives who don't like her because of her views on religion. She saw Communism as a religion where the proletariat is made God. One rapes you in the name of God the other rapes you in the name of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Both rapes are frauds for the benefit of the rulers. One is a Vampire and the other is a Werewolf.

 

[MontagK505]

I'll try, but I'm certainly no expert in philosophy.

Like the stereotype, I got really into Ayn Rand when I was 17 or so. At the time I read all of her books, but I haven't touched them since, so my memory is pretty hazy on the plots. But from what I remember, her books, especially The Fountainhead, celebrated human genius.

One of the people Roark encounters who earns his respect was a welder, but he was a master welder. So the idea was that people who did their chosen work extremely well, no matter how dirty the job, were heroes.

She talked about, in that interminable Galt speech, how money was an exchange of human value. I do something for you which you value, so you give me your value in return. That's an idea that still rings true to me.

She also championed the idea that art for art's sake was virtuous, and that public acclaim and artistic merit weren't synonymous.

Although just writing those two paragraphs together makes me see the contradiction. If money is just a reflection of the intrinsic value of your work, then isn't popular art, by definition, better, simply because other people will trade their value for it? But I digress.

I think her work is as riddled with contradictions as her life was. But there are some nuggets in there worth discussing. Her problem was she was just so damn smug and nasty about it all.

Rand disliked much of popular art but acknowledged the right of an artist to get paid for what they produced. The irony is, that prior to the rise of Capitalism an artist had to be wealthy or have a wealthy patron to survive. Art today is being driven almost entirely by the marketplace and as a result a lot of it is seen as poop by somebody.

 

[Unabogie]

Rand disliked much of popular art but acknowledged the right of an artist to get paid for what they produced. The irony is, that prior to the rise of Capitalism an artist had to be wealthy or have a wealthy patron to survive. Art today is being driven almost entirely by the marketplace and as a result a lot of it is seen as poop by somebody.

Well in the Fountainhead, she expressed total disdain for certain kinds of art, such as folk music or "twentieth century" music. Her claim was that certain art was intrinsically great, and that popular art was chosen for its value to the collective. Hence, beautiful homes like what Roark designed were scoffed at by the masses, when they were the only real aesthetic worth looking at.

But the contradiction is that if money equals value, then what Howard Roark designed was worthless since no one wanted to pay him for any of it.

 

[mumblethrax]

She talked about, in that interminable Galt speech, how money was an exchange of human value. I do something for you which you value, so you give me your value in return. That's an idea that still rings true to me.

Well, it doesn't ring true for me, because sometimes trade is motivated by the desire to unload something of no value to me. If I open my lunch box and find a bologna sandwich, and I hate bologna sandwiches, and you open yours and find peanut butter and jelly sandwich, and you hate PB&J, if we trade then neither of us has traded "our value", but we both nevertheless benefit from the trade.

But if Rand says that money is a medium for exchange, and trade is an optimizing algorithm under ideal conditions...well, no kidding. You'd get that from any decent introductory economics text, except that the introductory economics text wouldn't be riddled with obvious inconsistencies, bad philosophy, and obnoxious personality. Ironically, the "heroes" who write good textbooks are largely anonymous, while Rand, who wrote bad comic books, continues to be celebrated.

These threads always bring to mind Cardinal Wolsey--be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. Even after repudiating the woman and her philosophy, people want to believe that her writing has some value. I don't see any reason to believe that's the case. Her principle legacy is an ongoing toxic influence on our dumb political culture.

 

[dudalb]

My biggest problem with Rand has little to do with her ideology and a lot to do with her being a crappy fiction writer.
Her attempts,after Atlas Shrugged was publsihed, to make the fact her charecters are one dimensonal into a virtue are pretty amusing;
Frankly, as far as libertarian oriented fiction goes, Heinlein's "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" is much better then Rand's work.

 

[Unabogie]

Well, it doesn't ring true for me, because sometimes trade is motivated by the desire to unload something of no value to me.

Agreed! I think her truisms are true sometimes, and have value as concepts for that truth. But as you point out, they break down in the real world, which is also true for her entire objectivist philosophy.

I have an acquaintance who considers himself a true conservative, and he's hotly against any government involvement in health care. I once asked him, "well what should happen to an elderly person who has no money and gets sick?"

He just said "I don't know".

His ideology told him government health care was wrong, yet he also understood that letting the old and sick just die was also wrong. He couldn't reconcile this contradiction in a way that didn't make him feel impure.

As I wrote above, all isms fall apart if you strictly adhere to them. The best societies mix it all together and choose what results in the best outcome.

 

[Toke]

My biggest problem with Rand has little to do with her ideology and a lot to do with her being a crappy fiction writer.
Her attempts,after Atlas Shrugged was publsihed, to make the fact her charecters are one dimensonal into a virtue are pretty amusing;
Frankly, as far as libertarian oriented fiction goes, Heinlein's "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" is much better then Rand's work.

Have you tried the freehold series by Michael Z. Williamson?
Apart from the libertarian zeal it is quite good.

 

[mumblethrax]

As I wrote above, all isms fall apart if you strictly adhere to them. The best societies mix it all together and choose what results in the best outcome.

That's probably true, but it does matter how quickly an -ism falls apart. We aren't talking about fiddly difficulties of finer points of practical implementation here--the problem with Rand is that she falls on her face right out of the gate. She makes howlingly bad logical errors in constructing her arguments, which can be refuted from the armchair. It's true that her ideas don't work in the real world, but they also don't work on paper. They just don't work anywhere.

And I'm unclear on why people don't just walk away from her after noticing that. There's always this desire to find the good in her junk philosophy. Maybe it has to do with sunk costs--people invest time, energy and emotion in this stuff, and walking away with nothing to show for it means that it was all wasted. But, of course, it was wasted whether people choose to acknowledge it or not.

 

[hgc]

Then you've read his entire works (thay all recycle the same plot...it's like Mad Libs-the Novel).

ETA: Every Dan Brown novel ever:
Main Character 1(MC1): I know a lot about this group, and I suspect a conspiracy.
Main Character 2(MC2): I'm skeptical, but I'll go along for now
Mentor of MC1(Mentor): I believe in you, MC1, and I'll help you out where I can, but I'm going out on a limb here.
MC1: Oh no, someone tried to kill us when we looked into it, and we barely managed to escape in a totally unbelievable and physically impossible way! We're on to something! Let's go to Place for more research!
MC2: I think I believe you now, let's smooch!
MC1 (at Place): Ah! A clue! I've unraveled the conspiracy!
Mentor (taking off Ghost Witch Werewolf Indian Chief of the Black Lagoon mask): Aha! No you haven't, you've played into my hands! I've been behind it all along! Now to get rid of you meddling kids!
2XMachine: *stomps Mentor* No, you lose. MC1 wins.
MC1 and MC2: Yeah! *smooch*.

Hilarious -- Mentor/boss-as-plot-twist-villain is one of the hoariest of action story cliches. Minority Report -- a pretty bad movie that got a lot worse when mentor is revealed as villain.

 

[RandFan]

These threads always bring to mind Cardinal Wolsey--be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out.

The following is just commentary. Opinion. It's not meant to provoke or assail your point of view mumble.

I'm willing to concede every thing you've said about Rand and her work for sake of argument and still think Wolsey's statement is not at all helpful to human progress. It's that kind of thinking that assumes there is some universal truth about human nature and that we should find the good and get rid of the bad that can and often does leads to censorship (I don't for a moment think you are advocating censorship). For myself I prefer no prior restraint. No predetermining what are and are not good ideas. In the long run I trust the market place of ideas. It's a lousy system fraught with error and reversal but still the best there is.

Unlike Rand, Marx was a rigorous philosopher. Yet his ideas did not preclude them from being used to justify Mao's great leap forward or Stalin's purges. It did not preclude the reeducation camps and killing fields of Pol Pot. None of which were the fault of Marx. Ideas are not themselves dangerous. It's the ability of governments to manipulate ideas to their advantage that is bad coupled with people's failure to think critically and question authority. In his book, The Case for Democracy, Natan Sharanksy argued that the greatest threat to liberty is the prior restraint and control of ideas.

To live an examined life one must be willing to consider different points of view. Social and moral progress is the result of the free exchange of ideas via an adversarial and intellectual process.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." --Aristotle.

Finally, as for Rand, given the excesses of communism and the idea that individual liberty is secondary to the good of society I think her message was important. JMHO.

"Communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social" --Martin Luther King Jr.