We’ve heard it before and it is staggeringly obvious. The US commits war crimes and act of terror and the perpetrators go unpunished. But it’s Chomsky at 84 still challenging perceptions.
Who is Ayn Rand? Little known in the UK but famed in the US she is the author of a number of novels and philosophical treatises defending capitalism as the economic system most consistent with human freedom.
Although Rand’s ‘Atlas Shrugged’ is on my list of favourite books (I’ll have to review that list) I concur with Steven Goldstein in recognising its baleful influence on US and therefore international political discourse.
The main reason for Rand’s influence is the novel ‘Atlas Shrugged’. Whether it is ‘well written’ may be debatable but there is no doubt that it was powerfully written in terms having lasting impact on its readers. The power of the novel lies in its portrayal of individuals engaged in a heroic struggle to actualise themselves in terms of authenticity, integrity, freedom and creativity. Inevitably young people identify with this struggle:
Whilst Atlas Shrugged has some very inspirational things to say about the human spirit, creative will etc., there is a perversity hidden within the heroic presentation. It is a perversity that asserts that status as a creator (a man of mind) puts you above your fellow humans in such a way that you are no longer subject to any democratic consensus. In Rand’s world progress is achieved by a few Olympian individuals and not by the collective effort and cooperation of the many; these individuals therefore have greater human worth and moral authority.
There is a lot that’s wrong about Ayn Rand’s philosophy. The capitalist/individualist ideal she extols simply does not exist in reality. Additionally there is a thread of nastiness in her work wherein the ‘men of mind’ are seen as having more human worth than those of lesser ability. Because she sees her ubermensch as the creators and thus true owners of material wealth she endorses their right to destroy that wealth through acts of terrorism and piracy. Ultimately, in Atlas Shrugged, she has Dagney Taggart coldly murder a soldier for his indecision and justify this on the grounds that his alleged ‘refusal to think’ made him less than human.
On this same principle of a superior morality being inherent in the capitalist/individualist ideal, Rand believed that ‘dictatorships’ had no rights and that capitalist ‘democracies’ had a right but no obligation to overthrow such dictatorships.
Rand’s work is the example par excellence of a ‘weaponised narrative’. It’s influence on American thinking is clear. While Rand’s philosophy is shallow and mean, it is her special skill to present the shallow and mean as deep and noble. However much we may deplore her philosophy it is ludicrous to conclude that Rand had mediocre or no writing skills when it was those skills that made her work amongst the most influential and dangerous of the last century.
I got the following responses:
Philip Nelson: So you’ve read her works? Studied her philosophy? You can connect her metaphysics and epistemology with her politics and morality and aesthetic work? I didn’t think so.
June 16 at 8:09pm · Like
Gavin Sealey: Philip Nelson If I had studied her works to the depth you have I would probably be offended if anyone called them shallow. I know enough about Rand’s materialist metaphysics to know that it does not lead to a morality that recognises and respects intrinsic human worth and human connectedness. I am happy to withdraw ‘shallow and mean’ and replace it with ‘deeply flawed and mean’. Btw do you think that Dagney was morally right to murder the hesitant soldier? That Francisco was morally right to destroy the mines? that Ragnar was morally right to attack the aid ships? Is that the kind of morality you endorse and would be prepared to recommend to everyone?
June 16 at 11:28pm · Like · 1
Philip Nelson: You’re right, her philosophy does not acknowledge intrinsic worth. However it does value the absolute right of an individual to exist free from force or fraud. Did you know that? I do believe all those characters were morally correct in doing what they do. I can’t even begin to explain why but if you’ve read the book you should know at least Rand’s justification. I wholeheartedly, unashamedly recommend Objectivism to anyone who wishes to live a better, happier life.
June 16 at 11:32pm · Like
Ryan Wilson: That reads like an advertisement for Scientology.
X philosophy is one of freedom yeah! it provides freedom from x and y! Did you even know this amazing fact!?
I can’t even begin to explain why it’s so awesome, but just read this book from the prophet: you’ll see, you’ll see man… It’s the open door to a happier, better LIFE.
June 17 at 2:03am · Like · 1
Philip Nelson: Oh no! You equated Objectivism with Scientology! I am so embarrassed. The purpose of Philosophy is to make your life better. If you think it’s too cheesy to advertise it as such, then, well, I am sorry because I don’t know how to talk to someone like you.
Ryan is not the only person to have poked fun at Rand’s Objectivist followers by comparing them to Ron Hubbard’s Scientologists:
Chomsky makes some interesting comments about Obama and the Occupy movement in an interview with Amy Goodman at Democracy Now. There is a transcript of the interview on the site.
On Occupy Chomsky says that they “changed the national discourse” so there is now a dialogue about inequality; but it’s his second point that nails the value of the movement:
The other aspect, which in my estimation may be more significant, is that the Occupy movement spontaneously created something that doesn’t really exist in the country: communities of mutual support, cooperation, open spaces for discussion. They just developed a health system, a library, a common kitchen—just people doing things and helping each other. That’s very much missing. There is a massive propaganda—it’s been going on for a century, but picking up enormously—that you really shouldn’t care about anyone else, you should just care about yourself. You pay attention to yourself; we don’t want anything else. You take a look at the attitudes among young people, that’s—it’s polled, it’s studied. It’s remarkably high. So, there was just a study that came out from the Harvard Public Policy Institute, found that—pretty scary results, I thought. Less than—this is kids 18 to 24, you know, college students, basically. Less than half of them think that the government has a responsibility to deal with things like healthcare or food, and so on. When they say the government doesn’t have a responsibility, that’s kind of an interesting concept. If people thought they were living in a democracy, they would say—they would ask the question whether it’s a public responsibility. But again, the propaganda system is designed to make you feel that the government is some alien force, and it’s against you. You know, you want to keep it away from your affairs.
This is important. Occupy is not just a movement making ‘demands’ it is an agitation on a conceptual level that challenges the predominant paradigm of individualism. This paradigm runs deep in the American psyche, associating ‘heoric individualism’ with success, progress and personal liberty. It is articulated in the philosophy of Ayn Rand and mythologised in her novels.
Sounds like a pretty authoritative analysis of US global policy since 1945. I’m referring to this because Chomsky has been the most respected American dissident for decades. He gives the ‘what’ of US Global Policy. The following videos by John Perkins give the ‘how’: