Ayn Rand: “The Ugliest Philosophy the Postwar World has Produced”

Comment by George Monbiot in yesterday’s Guardian (March 6):

…Selfishness, it contends, is good, altruism evil, empathy and compassion are irrational and destructive. The poor deserve to die; the rich deserve unmediated power. It has already been tested, and has failed spectacularly and catastrophically. Yet the belief system constructed by Ayn Rand, who died 30 years ago today, has never been more popular or influential.

Rand was a Russian from a prosperous family who emigrated to the United States. Through her novels (such as Atlas Shrugged) and her nonfiction (such as The Virtue of Selfishness) she explained a philosophy she called Objectivism. This holds that the only moral course is pure self-interest. We owe nothing, she insists, to anyone, even to members of our own families. She described the poor and weak as “refuse” and “parasites,” and excoriated anyone seeking to assist them. Apart from the police, the courts and the armed forces, there should be no role for government: no social security, no public health or education, no public infrastructure or transport, no fire service, no regulations, no income tax.

Atlas Shrugged, published in 1957, depicts a United States crippled by government intervention in which heroic millionaires struggle against a nation of spongers. The millionaires, whom she portrays as Atlas holding the world aloft, withdraw their labour, with the result that the nation collapses. It is rescued, through unregulated greed and selfishness, by one of the heroic plutocrats, John Galt.

The poor die like flies as a result of government programs and their own sloth and fecklessness. Those who try to help them are gassed. In a notorious passage, she argues that all the passengers in a train filled with poisoned fumes deserved their fate. One, for instance, was a teacher who taught children to be team players; one was a mother married to a civil servant, who cared for her children; one was a housewife “who believed that she had the right to elect politicians, of whom she knew nothing.”

Rand’s is the philosophy of the psychopath, a misanthropic fantasy of cruelty, revenge and greed. Yet, as Gary Weiss shows in his new book, Ayn Rand Nation, she has become to the new right what Karl Marx once was to the left: a demigod at the head of a chiliastic cult. Almost one third of Americans, according to a recent poll, have read Atlas Shrugged, and it now sells hundreds of thousands of copies every year.

Ignoring Rand’s evangelical atheism, the Tea Party movement has taken her to its heart. No rally of theirs is complete without placards reading “Who is John Galt?” and “Rand was right.” Rand, Weiss argues, provides the unifying ideology that has “distilled vague anger and unhappiness into a sense of purpose.” She is energetically promoted by the broadcasters Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santelli. She is the guiding spirit of the Republicans in Congress.

Like all philosophies, Objectivism is absorbed, secondhand, by people who have never read it. I believe it is making itself felt on this side of the Atlantic: in the clamorous new demands to remove the 50p tax band for the very rich, for instance; or among the sneering, jeering bloggers who write for the Telegraph and the Spectator, mocking compassion and empathy, attacking efforts to make the world a kinder place.

It is not hard to see why Rand appeals to billionaires. She offers them something that is crucial to every successful political movement: a sense of victimhood. She tells them that they are parasitized by the ungrateful poor and oppressed by intrusive, controlling governments.

It is harder to see what it gives the ordinary teabaggers, who would suffer grievously from a withdrawal of government. But such is the degree of misinformation that saturates this movement and so prevalent in the US is Willy Loman syndrome (the gulf between reality and expectations) that millions blithely volunteer themselves as billionaires’ doormats. I wonder how many would continue to worship at the shrine of Ayn Rand if they knew that towards the end of her life she signed on for both Medicare and social security. She had railed furiously against both programs, as they represented everything she despised about the intrusive state. Her belief system was no match for the realities of age and ill health….

Saturated in her philosophy, the new right on both sides of the Atlantic continues to demand the rollback of the state, even as the wreckage of that policy lies all around. The poor go down, the ultra-rich survive and prosper. Ayn Rand would have approved.

Advertisements

7 responses to “Ayn Rand: “The Ugliest Philosophy the Postwar World has Produced”

  1. When I first read the Fountainhead as a teenager I was swept away by the romantic hero and heroine but puzzled by the philosophy that opposed everything I had been taught. In my thirties, I used the same book as a “sleeping pill” finding that after only a page or two found at random I would find myself in dreamland. It is extremely disturbing to think it is taken seriously by any political party today. What are they thinking?

  2. Horace Krever

    Rand’s “philosophy” was not original. She surely must have read Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) and David Ricardo (1772-1823).

    • I was afraid you were going to name Nietzsche who probably WAS an influence on her but who – his unsavoury sermons about the Superman notwithstanding – was a subtle and original thinker. It wss only his sister’s posthumous manipulations that turned him into an early Nazi. In fact, his anti-imperial pro-French views – and his volte-face about Wagner – suggest the opposite.

  3. In many ways the Ayn Rand philosophy/ideology is a seductive to some. Very well written. I never read these books, but thought I could safely ignore them.

  4. A close friend who studied philosophy was forever turned off Rand by an evening with her acolyte Nathaniel Brandon, because he would not answer any questions, even basic ones. A philosopher who was not open to questions, he concluded (fairly in my view), was a fraud. I have not seen anything since to change that opinion.

    • Nathaniel was a Torontonian, which surely, was a point in his favour. His sister died a few weeks ago.