Ayn Rand's works were hypocritical revenge fantasies

Ayn Rand was born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum (Russian: Али́са Зиновьевна Розенбау&#1084 on February 2, 1905, to a Russian Jewish bourgeois family living in Saint Petersburg.

The subsequent October Revolution and the rule of the Bolsheviks under Vladimir Lenin disrupted the comfortable life the family had previously enjoyed. Her father’s business was confiscated and the family displaced.

Her philosophy is sort of a crude photo negative of Marxist-Leninism.

If Lenin believed that capitalists chasing profits were exploiting the farmers and workers of the world then by god Rand says that capitalists making money is the absolute pinnacle of good. If the Communist ideal is collective ownership then Rand is going to say that there is no such thing as society, only individuals. If the Soviet government takes daddy's stuff then Rand is going to write a book vilifying those government takers and having John Galt show them what's up. It's fantasy revenge porn.

Here's the amusing thing though. In Atlas Shrugged you have a small group of men in charge of the whole economy. They are above the law, they can even kill those who stand in their way so long, as the phrase goes, the trains run on time, as long as more steel is made, more rail is laid, so long as industrial output increases and they make money.

Which is, of course, very similar to how the Soviets ran their economy. She just replaced Politburo appointed apparatchiks with Noble Profit Seeking Captains of Industry.

 

Agree with a lot of what you say, but where did her atheism come from?

 

Her narcissistic worship of the ego and rejection of anything that elevates anything above the self.

I say this as an atheist. Her beliefs weren't based on science or rationality. She based them on her own superiority complex.

 

I highly recommend "Goddess of the Market" for anyone who wants to learn more about Rand.

 

Not a fan of Rand's novels, but the "analysis" in the OP is moronic and pure ad hominem. Everyone is shaped by their experiences to one degree or another, but that doesn't even come close to discrediting someone's work due to those types of factors alone. Seems like some resentful leftblog twaddle to me.

 

I think it also came out of necessity she could not argue for reason and logic and believe in God.

 

Something wrong with the entire picture. The Jews WERE the Bolsheviks. Ayn Rand and her family were Jewish. The Jews ended up with ALL the potatoes.

On the other hand, it's hard to believe anything worthwhile could've come out of Mother Russia during that period that Americans would be interested in now. But here today, among conservatives, Ayn Rand is Jesus' mother.

 

Must you inflict antisemitism into every thread?

 

What, are the semites not central to the Russian revolution and to Ayn Rand? Should we all live in your Lynn Cheney history books?

 

I've no idea what Lynn Cheney has to do with this issue, but as far as the rest of your answer goes, it does answer my question, and your answer seems to be YES!

 

My answer is definitely YES. History is history.

 

Why do Nazi's always have to throw this line? Yes there were Jewish Bolsheviks, but guess what. Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin were not Jews, and Stalin was definitely not a fan of Jews, or really any religious groups for that matter. They threatened the power of his cult of personality. He allowed the Orthodox church to exist somewhat, but it was more to use it as a puppet; this caused a schism in the church that exists to this day.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5YWTFW5WMw

 

Just as scheduled, the every-other month anti-Rand scree is posted. I can almost set my watch by you guys.

If you want to post an anti-Rand thread, at least try an original topic?

But I must add Phoebe Bump's blatantly bigoted response was a nice touch!

 

If Cheney and the true patriots really wanted to torture people they would make them read Rand. I know she wasn't a native speaker but it must be - and forget about the nonsensical, mishmash of whatever she is trying to say - the most turgid, boring, glop ever put to pen. Truly horrendous to wade through.

 

How is something that motivates people to think, glop?

Whether you agree with her or not, her writings are truly remarkable. I do not agree with The Communist Manifesto either but I have it almost memorized because it is an important piece of work.

You shouldn't be in such a haste to burn the books you do not agree with.

 

Because John Galts 60 straight pages (70 in the unabridged version) of monologue is one of the most titanic and immersion destroying roadblocks in the history of literature. To put it in perspective that piece of the authors personal opinion is almost twice as long as the Communist Manifesto. Christ, the Heart of Darkness feel less dense, and at least that book has a decent story at its core and was more reflective of the real world.

 

You felt Heart of Darkness was a "dense" book? I thought it read like a dime store novel.

 

Ayn Rand is what happens when you are subjected to ideological extremism of the greatest extent: an equally extreme opposite reaction.

Can't blame her, though that doesn't make her right.

Lesson: you want less fanatical reactionaries? Stop pushing radical leftist (*)(*)(*)(*) for them to react to.

 

I don't much care for Ayn Rand, though I am an anarcho-capitalist. I often violently disagree with Randians due to their acceptance of natural law.

I don't buy that by necessity the answer has to lie somewhere in the middle of the polar opposites.

 

I couldn't care any less if she were Joan of friggin' Arc, she was a terrible, stilted writer. Cringeworthy. She didn't have any literary skills. I'm not talking about the "philosophy" - she just flat out couldn't write. Maybe in Russian it is better.

 

HoD is weird. I have read it several times, and many other books written at the same time. Yet it, unlike almost any other still feels like I am moving through molasses while reading it. I get the same feeling when reading The Scarlet Letter.

- - - Updated - - -

Because reactionary movements only occur to leftist things /s

 

You conveniently exclude one of the most important qualities of Hank Rearden. He isn't concerned about running the world or even the country. He's concerned only with being at the top of his industry and personal wealth. He is not part of any central planning oligarchy "in charge of the whole economy."

The people in charge of running the economy in Atlas Shrugged are bureaucrats, not business tycoons. They use their power in government to manipulate corporations, most of which capitulate to the trending socialism.

You haven't read it, have you?

 

The point the book tries to make is that the corporate elite would be better if not limited by bureaucrats though. Also being at the top of an industry like (*)(*)(*)(*)ing steel or coal without regulations or limits means you wield an absolutely stupid amount of power over the country and possibly the world regardless of what you try to play yourself off as. Maybe you yourself aren't a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*), but chances are at least one person in high in the corporation beneath you is, and with the level of influence that your company has, they're unlikely to get in real trouble no matter what they do. You can see that IRL when looking at Henry Clay Frick, whom Carnegie placed in charge during the Homestead Strike and who (*)(*)(*)(*)ed the whole thing up so badly a dozen people ended up dead yet he was held responsible for nothing in the courts.

 

An extreme agenda triggers an extreme response.