Ayn Rand

Back in college I got into this controversial Russian philosopher.  In high school we had been Rush fans, and knew that both “Anthem” and 2112 were based on Ayn Rand – even to the point of liner notes in 2112 attesting to “the genius of Ayn Rand”.  I read Atlas Shrugged twice in college and once more about 10 years later, and rapidly devoured all her other books as well, even the much less interesting non-fiction philosophy.

 Biography.  Born in Russia in 1905, she emigrated to the US in the 1920s and became a screenwriter in Hollywood.  She was appalled that US intellectuals were leftists, not pro-capitalist, and began writing fiction which expressed her ideals.  She was atheist, but believed in objective morality and hated any form of moral relativism.  She also argued – convincingly, I believe – that fascism and communism were essentially the same, what she called “statism”, vs. capitalism.  For some time in college, I was an impressionable GVPT major, and instead of embracing communism – as many college students do – or being seduced by the dark side of fascism, I got hooked on capitalism.  For awhile I also stopped going to church, until 1994 when I went back again.  She died in 1982, and was honored with her own US stamp, which surprises me as I consider nowadays the stamps seem to be for liberal people, not arch-capitalists such as her. 

 

 We, The Living.  Her first novel, with the heroine Kira Argonova, an engineering student in Petrograd (aka St. Petersburg and Leningrad) who falls in love with two men: Leo Kovalensky, son of an aristocratic general shot during the war, and Andrei Taganov, Red hero of the same war and important man of Cheka – one of the few who were not complete scoundrels.  Kira’s family, disfavored because of their bourgeois background, gets the short end of the stick.  Ultimately she has a hard time deciding between the two men who she loves, and who love her.  I last read this in Bucharest, which seemed to be a fitting environment.  This was made into a movie in fascist Italy, of all places, as it had a strong anti-communist message.

 The Fountainhead.  As described in my blog ages ago – August 2006.  I see that Gary Gooper has a stamp…years after Ayn Rand got her own stamp.  It got a reference in “Dirty Dancing” (featuring Patrick Swayze), in which a character dumps the girl he got pregnant, citing The Fountainhead as an excuse to do as he pleased. 

 Atlas Shrugged.  Her “masterpiece”, still not put into film format [released in three parts, 2011, 2012, and 2014, with a different cast for each].  This seems to elicit strong reactions: among those who actually read it, most either love it or could barely stand it and gave up reading long before the end.  It’s certainly a long book.  The story is basically this: the US goes down the toilet as “looters” and fascists – corporatists we’d identify with the ENRON crowd and Bush today – take over the government.  Meanwhile, anyone and everyone of any talent or ability seems to disappear off the face of the earth, except for three: Francisco D’Anconia, who devolves into a worthless playboy; Dagny Taggart, who keeps her railroad running despite her clueless older brother Jim’s best efforts to run it into the ground; and Hank Rearden, the Boxer (Animal Farm) man of steel industrialist who invents a new metal, only to be hounded and exploited by his less worthy but Washington-savvy competitors such as Orren Boyle.  Finally John Galt comes out of nowhere and explains – at length – what the hell is going on.  Instead of an evil criminal mastermind, Ellsworth Toohey (The Fountainhead), this book simply has a weak and mediocre cabal of pragmatic schemers who succeed because Galt stole all the smart people and Rearden and Dagny refuse to play the Washington game. 

            Most people who hate this book seem to focus on Galt’s character being unrealistically stoic – as with Howard Roark in The Fountainhead.  In a sense, these are over-the-top, super-perfect archetypes unlikely to be found in real life, but they’re meant as ideals.  On the other hand, as committed and dedicated, as honest and of sterling, impeccable integrity as these characters are, with the glaring exception of Francisco D’Anconia, they lack any warmth, humanity, emotions, or sense of humor.  To the extent they derive any pleasure, it’s from (A) building a new railroad using (B) a revolutionary metal, and (C) celebrating their industrial triumphs in the bedroom.  

            I also found a few other interesting concepts which I only picked up reading the book the second or third time around.  One was Lillian Rearden’s preference for insincere flattery: that a man would deny reality and lie to her to stroke her ego, was more important than if he simply – and honestly – told her that she looked beautiful because he really believed it, which is no more meaningful to her than stating that “2+2=4” or “the Earth revolves around the sun”.  Also was Jim Taggart’s marriage to Cheryl Taggart: she eventually realizes that he married her not because of any virtues or beauty she had, but because he perceived that she lacked any merits or virtues at all – this was a pure act of charity on his part, and effectively an indictment on her value.  We can also see George W. Bush as a Jim Taggart type: his top ability, to the extent he has any at all, is schmoozing deals and “getting things done” in an underhanded, back-room, behind-the-scenes way.

 Anthem.  Essentially this is 2112, but instead of the protagonist committing suicide out of despair, he and his lover escape the totalitarian regime and go off somewhere else.

 Non-fiction.  She has various books published in the 60s, including Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, For the New Intellectual, and The Virtue of Selfishness.  Years later I read The Satanic Bible, by Anton LeVey, and found a shocking similarity between LeVey’s philosophy and Ayn Rand’s.  Both preach “enlightened self-interest”, which means “look out for yourself, but be consistent.”  Neither advocated screwing people over to get what you want, lying, cheating, stealing, or anything like that.  Really, it’s very much common sense.  The problem was that Rand herself was arrogant, ugly, judgmental, unwilling to compromise, and even after living in the US for decades still had a thick Russian accent and always seemed to be pissed off.  She also cheated on her husband, which gave rise to the obvious challenge of hypocrisy.   

            Rand also didn’t believe in charity or altruism.  To her, Robin Hood was the worst villain in history.  The only thing worse than a person with no pity, she said, was someone who took advantage of the pity of others.  She was an atheist, and vehemently denounced religion as a fraud, and priests as nothing better than modern-day witch doctors.  Anti-materialists, to her, always seemed to have a direct pecuniary interest in persuading people not to care about money – mainly because they were soliciting money for their own purposes. 

            She also opposed the Vietnam War, not because she sympathized with the North Vietnamese, but simply because she believed the US had no interest in saving the South Vietnamese from communism.  To her, the war was an exercise in altruism and charity. 

 Libertarians.  Rand herself had no use for the Libertarian Party, though she also had no use for the fascists or communists.  The Democrats were watered-down socialists, while the Republicans were watered-down fascists.  Nevertheless, the Libertarians come closest to her ideology: capitalism for its own sake, with no corporate welfare or socialism added. 

Summary.  Probably the most tangible and meaningful way I still “support” Ayn Rand in any way as of 2009, long after having read the books and drifted away from being arrogant and selfish as I may have been in college, is my support for the Libertarian Party today, notwithstanding her vehement opposition thereto.  I go to church, I give money out occasionally when I feel like it (no blanket principled objection to charity), and try to help others when I have the chance. [Still true in 2017.]

            One thing you learn in life is that no one is infallible – even the wisest, smartest people make mistakes from time to time.  And even the dumbest people sometimes say or do intelligent things.  The key is to watch out for both, keep your mind open, and learn as much as you can from as many different sources.  Finally, you have to exercise your OWN judgment, which you cannot outsource to India or anyone else.  Maybe Ayn Rand didn’t have all the answers, any more than Tony Robbins does.  But she had a great deal of great and important ideas, which still hold true today.