The world according to Ayn Rand
Many people have been called selfish as an insult by either their parents or their friends at some point in their lives, but for some, the notion of selfishness might be taking on a new meaning. (back to story...)
Discuss this story (8 comments)
All discussions are moderated. Please see our full comment policy for details.
Give me a break. Capitalism and Collectivism are equally despotic? Are you out of your mind? Did George Washington and Abraham Lincoln starve 5 million citizens for an ideal? Is the American ideal that of sacrifice of the individual or the pursuit of the individual's happiness? Duh!
One of my favorite things about Ayn Rand is that her real-life detractors (such as Kathleen Lahey) come across as antagonists from her novels.
Except for its unaccountable inclusion of the ignorant attack by Lahey, the article is very accurate and objective. The novels of Ayn Rand are indeed life-altering. They are also exciting, page-turning adventures. Atlas Shrugged, though over 1100 pages long, has been read by 5 million people--pretty good evidence that the book hooks the reader. An economics professor once said to me that his only complaints about Atlas Shrugged were that the book wasn't long enough and the villains weren't painted black enough.
All of Ayn Rand's novels give one the unique experience of heroes who are *rational* yet passionate and daring, heroes who are self-affirming rather than self-abnegating. John Galt in Atlas is the polar opposite of Mother Teresa. And Galt's Speech in the novel is the polar opposite of both the Bible and The Communist Manifesto, both Plato's Republic and Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.
I think Lahey should be ashamed of herself. To put forth the notion that man's ideas, i.e., his consciousness, is determined by his environment or that of a man's personal history is horrific. These sort of notions belong in the trash heap of history where they belong!
Rand's work can hardly be considered an "historical artifact". As I read Atlas Shrugged right now I find it uncanny the parallels between the events in the novel and the events I read of daily in the news.
We see increasing government intervention in all aspects of people's lives and business. The increasing surveillance and violation of basic civil liberties in the name of anti-terror; the rising clamor for restrictive taxes and regulation on industry in order to "fight" global warming; and of course the relentless beating of the war drums in the Middle East.
It makes me want to ask not "Who is John Galt?" but rather "Where is he, when we need him most?"
I am pleased to see this article in the Journal. It is one more milestone in a long intellectual journey.
During my time at Queen's (Eng Phys 84) we had a small Objectivist discussion group, no more than 5 or 6 people. We listened to taped lectures by Rand and some of her associates. There were very few books published by or about Ayn Rand in those years, fewer than one per year.
I have since done research to estimate how many people worldwide were Objectivists in 1980-84. The number then, based on total sales of Rand's books, attendance at seminars, and other data, was roughly 300,000. Of these, the vast majority were Americans. Rand admirers in Canada might have totaled 10,000 to 20,000, but then as now, there was no single organization to which they all belonged. Interest in Objectivism was for most purposes an underground, individual phenomenon.
By comparison, the worldwide number today is closer to four million, and Rand's philosophical movement is growing by about 7 or 8 percent per year. New books on Rand or on aspects of her philosophy appear 6 to 7 times a year. Of the 15 most important philosophy schools in America, two have tenured Objectivist professors. Rand's novels are selling more copies each year now (upwards of 150,000 of each title) than when she was alive.
Of course, one can ask, are these numbers perhaps inflated? But my criterion is fairly restrictive: reading Ayn Rand has to change your life. A 1992 survey by the U.S. Library of Congress of 2,000 readers found that about 200 of them cited the Bible as the book that had had the most impact on their lives; 19 cited either Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead. No other book got more than six votes. As the Library of Congress observed, this was a very significant finding. It implied that one percent of American adults were Objectivists.
This has been confirmed by other data -- for example, in the past 40 years, a dozen Playboy playmates have chosen Atlas Shrugged as their favorite book. I surveyed the user profiles of America Online in 1997 and found substantially the same pattern. No other author had the popularity of Ayn Rand; she out-polled all the authors mentioned in the earlier survey, by an even larger margin.
Given its current growth rate, I project that the Objectivist movement will double again in size by 2017. For purposes of comparison, the Mormon church has about 13 million members worldwide, up from 8 million in 1991, and are growing at 2 percent per year. All things being equal, Objectivism will pass Mormonism in total numbers no later than 2030.
Strangely, this is a story that Rand's detractors and even many ardent Ayn Rand fans are not aware of: sometime in the past 10 to 15 years, Ayn Rand entered the mainstream of American (and Canadian) life.
I thank the Journal for its coverage of what will surely be one of the more important movements of the 21st century.
Dean Brooks
Eng Phys 84
Obviously Kathleen Lahey's comments were included in an attempt to provide some "balance" in the article. The article's author might have felt obligated to offset the views of several idealistic young people with the view of somebody who is presumably older and less naive.
Still, that seems unfair to the young people, and there's a problem when the young persons' ideals are actually noble, and the older person is actually corrupt.
It's commonly held that freedom in society must be limited, "or there will be blood in the streets". This view is one which Ayn Rand precisely opposes. Neither this view, nor its opposite is *obviously* correct, even if people like Lahey would like you to believe otherwise.
Ayn Rand was *very far* from naive. It's not fair to present her as someone whom only young people agree with -- whose ideas are dated, and whose ideas can only be tolerated because she lived through the Russian revolution.
She was a formidable intellectual advocate of reason, egoism, individualism, and capitalism -- not just someone who gets young people excited.
Journal comments policy
The comments on this website do not represent the views or opinions of the Queen's Journal, but of the comment-writer alone. Libelous comments and unsubstantiated allegations will not be printed, nor will comments that discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, nationality, citizenship, gender, religion, sexual orientation, age, marital status or mental or physical ability. All comments are moderated, and may take up to 24 hours to be posted on this site barring any unforeseen circumstances. The Journal reserves the right to refrain from publishing comments. Comments are not edited for grammar or spelling, or for vulgar language outside of the above restrictions. The Journal respects your privacy. By posting your comments in our feedback forum you give us permission to post and publish your name, city and comments on the Journal website. All submissions must contain the email address of the comment-writer. Thank you for your co-operation.
England
October 23, 2007 at 8:54 p.m.
I am pleased to see a growing trend of giving Ayn Rand a fair hearing. This is a very considerate article.
Except for the last part. First of all, why ask a law professor what their opinion is? Would it not be more pertinent, given Rand's status, to ask a philosopher, professor of literature or an economist what they think?
Secondly, I don't know why the comment about "despotism" made the grade for inclusion. I'm reminded of a quote from Atlas Shrugged, Rand's magnum opus: "You should learn, James, that words have an exact meaning".
How can there be such a thing as a "market-run society" ? The key word in "free market" is free - freedom from coercion. The suggestion of "free-market coercion" is a blatant paradox. Does being completely free to decide for myself how to live my life mean that I'm living under a despot, or does it make me one?
As to voluntary tax being unworkable - for all the mentioning of academics being dismissive, this comment itself is dismissive, as the writer does not explain the reasoning behind the assertion. Is it saying that no explanation is necessary as any worthy reader will see the obvious inadequacy of Rand's position? Then that, too, is dismissive.
Some of us have no qualm in voting others' rights away now. Why would it be any more difficult to decide for ourselves instead? Furthermore, would it not be easier to volunteer our money when:
1. it will never find its way into the pocket of another, nor theirs into yours;
2. you decide exactly how much of a contribution you will make toward upholding the rule of law;
3. you are voting with your money to have your right to that same money protected, as any selfish person would want?
Rand has already refuted the cult of compromise. "In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit." Rand can and has already answered all the things that the status quo might and has thrown at her. Yet this counts for naught, if people continue not to read her, misrepresent what she said, or pretend that she has never spoken by repeating the same retorts that she has already retorted to.
The very notion of "running a society" is collectivist, which just shows how entrenched is collectivism in our slogans. Individualism, historically speaking, is a very modern, 19th century concept, that presents a complete switch at the metaphysical level of our premises. Collectivism has reigned unchallenged for most of man's history. Individualism is the future. So much for Ayn Rand being a historical curiosity.