The psychopathy of Ayn Rand

13 Jun, 2024 at 16:55 | Posted in Politics & Society | 2 Comments

Now, I don’t care to discuss the alleged complaints American Indians have against this country. I believe, with good reason, the most unsympathetic Hollywood portrayal of Indians and what they did to the white man. They had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages. The white man did not conquer this country …

Since the Indians did not have the concept of property or property rights—they didn’t have a settled society, they had predominantly nomadic tribal “cultures”—they didn’t have rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights that they had not conceived of and were not using …

What were they fighting for, in opposing the white man on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence; for their “right” to keep part of the earth untouched—to keep everybody out so they could live like animals or cavemen. Any European who brought with him an element of civilization had the right to take over this continent, and it’s great that some of them did. The racist Indians today—those who condemn America—do not respect individual rights.

Ayn Rand,  Address To The Graduating Class Of The United States Military Academy at West Point, 1974

It’s sickening to read this gobsmacking trash. But it’s perhaps even more sickening that people like Alan Greenspan consider Rand some​ kind of intellectual hero.

Alan Greenspan isn’t just a bad economist. He’s a bad person. What else can one think of a person who considers Ayn Rand — with the ugliest psychopathic philosophy the postwar world has produced — one of the great thinkers of the 20th century? A person who even co-edited a book with her — maintaining that unregulated capitalism is a “superlatively moral system”. A person who in his memoirs tries to reduce his admiration for Rand to a youthful indiscretion — but who actually still today can’t be described as anything else than a loyal Randian disciple.

Ayn Rand and her objectivist philosophy have​ more disciples than Greenspan. But as Hilary Putnam rightfully noticed in The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy (Harvard University Press, 2002) it’s doubtful if it even qualifies as a real philosophy:

It cannot be the case that the only universally valid norm refers solely to discourse. It is, after all, possible for someone to recognize truth-telling as a binding norm while otherwise being guided solely by ‘enlightened egoism.’ (This is, indeed, the way of life that was recommended by the influential if amateurish philosophizer – I cannot call her a philosopher – Ayn Rand.) But such a person can violate the spirit if not the letter of the principle of communicative action at every turn. After all, communicative action is contrasted with manipulation, and as such a person can manipulate people without violating the maxims of ‘sincerity, truth-telling, and saying only what one believes to be rationally warranted.’ Ayn Rand’s capitalist heroes manipulated people all the time (even if she didn’t consider it manipulation) via their control of capital, for example. Indeed, the person who says, ‘do what I want or I’ll shoot you,’ need not be violating any maxim concerned solely with discourse. But it would be a mistake to use such examples as objections to Habermasian ‘discourse ethics.’

In her diary from 1928, Ayn Rand approvingly quotes a statement made by William Edward Hickman – “What is good for me is right.” Rand is enthusiastic and writes: “The best and strongest expression of a real man’s psychology I have heard.”

Later she models one of her heroes​  – Danny Renahan – after Hickman. Renahan is portrayed as

born with a wonderful, free, light consciousness — [resulting from] the absolute lack of social instinct or herd feeling. He does not understand, because he has no organ for understanding, the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people … Other people do not exist for him and he does not understand why they should.

Who was this  Hickman that so inspired Rand?

Hickman was a notorious bank robber, child kidnapper and mass murderer. One of the most hated and heinous criminals in U. S. history.

How people like Alan Greenspan and all modern-day ‘objectivist’ disciples can consider Ayn Rand “one of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century” is really beyond comprehension. It’s sickening.

2 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. Corporate capitalism and Ayn Rand’s defense of it are surely individualist ideological institutions but they are not contradicted by a regulatory state. The state enforces rules under the assumption that if everyone follows the rules, that is positive law as written, then there will be order and happiness. Where the people and the parties get it wrong is when they invoke their religious and customary ideological beliefs and emotions as the “”real”” basis of society and then go about sanctioning anyone who doesn’t like their ways.

    If a critique of Robert Nozick’s anarchy, or elimination of welfare programs, or Ayn Rand’s objectivation – civil society does it better, is to gain empirical validity and not just logical or persuasive plausibility then there needs to be an analysis that compares capital flows in their multidimensionality. The flow of human movements in terms of labor markets and marriage markets, but also in terms of migration from disaster areas and immigration for better quality of life, must be compared to financial capital flows: domestic capital, international capital, and state capital from tax revenue and non-governmental organizations that lend and supervise national government budgets – who benefits, who rejoices over the conflicts and losses of others?

    Inflation is necessary but moderate for growth and expansion of the economy. Neoliberals however expect pure laissez-faire and no intervention whatsoever – so they are always asserting “objectivism,” like Ayn Rand (friend of Greenspan), over the moral crisis: interference with free markets because the “poor” need a handout (safety net), and unions get to bargain for salaries, benefits and working conditions. The neoliberals manipulate the people to hate the state and therefore to hate helping the poor while poverty looms and real wages sink further under investment profits. 

  2. Wow! I did not know how far Rand had gone on this course, though I have long believed her notion of an ideal man was that of sociopath. And of course, a modern corporation is a exactly that: self-interest, as defined by profit, over all other things. As Piketty rightly says, profit-making “neither knows limits nor morality” (Piketty, T., 2014). Milton Friedman argues that  a moralism which seeks to create “capitalism with a conscience … is itself immoral” (Bakan, J., 2005) (pp. 32-41).

    Anwar


Leave a comment

Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and Comments feeds.