saving ink

“Ultimately the Objectivist movement failed for the same reason that communism failed: it tried to make its people live by the dictates of a totalizing ideology that failed to honor the realities of human existence.”

- Wealthcare | The New Republic

Disclaimer: As popular as Ayn Rand-bashing has become these days, in the text below I will defend her to some extent. You have been warned.

There is a lot I could write about this article, and I hope at some point I actually have the time to do some more research and write down every point I’d like to make. However, right now I’ll try to focus on the most important premise I found in this story - after a brief aside.

The overall article presents several very good arguments, but in many parts is guilty of the very sin it’s accusing Rand and her modern-day followers of: oversimplification. While I first read The Fountainhead at the age of 16 and Atlas Shrugged at the age of 17 and initially embraced both with a near-religious fervor, I’ve come back to both books many times in the decade since, and as my worldview changed with life experience, so did my readings of them. But to dismiss Rand’s works as capitalist propaganda is to completely miss the broader picture.

There are many lessons I learned from Rand that I still apply today: hard work matters. One should strive to be the best at what they do, and do every job - no matter how seemingly insignificant - to the best of their ability. I, as an individual, have the right to pursue my happiness in a way that does not impede in another individual’s pursuit of the same. I should not expect others to do my work for me. Life is absolutely worth living. I should only pursue relationships with those whose values I respect. It is harmful to indulge in meaningless relations, sexual or otherwise. One should surround themselves with people of quality, of moral character. One should judge art by its quality. Above all, one should hold themselves to the highest moral standards, and know that morality comes not from religion or other people, but from within.

These are values I strive to live by. And guess what? I voted for Obama.

That is because on an individual level, these are valuable lessons - but it is when one attempts to apply them to society as a whole that the theory breaks down in practice. And that’s the point I’m trying to get to, and which the above quote hits upon so elegantly:

Absolutes, whether written in novels or applied by force in reality, break down when human nature is involved, because human beings are imperfect creatures. It is why utopias, no matter how enticing and workable they seem on paper, inevitably fail when enacted in real life. And that’s why Rand’s version of capitalism and her perfect heroes - even those that start out flawed like Dagny or Rearden - do not mirror the actual world. They are a Photoshopped ideals, like models on the covers of fashion magazines. At best, they inspire those who read her novels to strive towards perfection. At worst, they allow for the kind of rationalizing that so many who have earned their fortunes today, not necessarily through hard work but through circumstance and luck, use to decry any attempts to change the status quo, to make up for the failings of human nature through intelligently implemented legislation.

Unlike her supermen, Rand herself had many failings, which the article lists in great detail. However, to blame her for the idiocy seen in today’s tea baggers and the like is going too far. Atlas in particular names many examples of rich industrialists who use their political influence to demonize those whom they find disagreeable, and she rightfully paints them as morally bankrupt. There are plenty of rich characters depicted as “leeches” (James Taggart) and plenty of poor characters shown to have moral integrity on par with the “producers” (Cherryl Brooks). When translated to reality, the philandering CEO spouting his political views on FOX would be seen as a villain, not a hero, in Rand’s world. But that detail is so often missed when all of the many theses and theories of Rand are boiled down to one simple equation: capitalism=good.

Our idealism must have limits. Our philosophies cannot ignore the everyday realities of the human condition. Any grand notion, any ideology that can motivate millions to die in its name should take into account the fact that someone, somewhere, will fuck it all up.

A is A only in the realm of science, of the physical, where rules exist that can be counted on to be constant. But human nature is not that reliable; it exists in shades of grey, of As qualified by exceptions and special cases. That’s why, when large groups of flawed humans gather in cities and nations and societies, governments are set up to try to balance the society’s ideals with the pragmatic facts of everyday life. Because in reality, those who become rich do so thanks to circumstances as often as through hard work. Those who stay poor can blame their place of birth more often than their laziness. If we’re really striving to be better, to be better as a society as well as as individuals, than we need practical solutions, not lofty moralizing. And we need to stop shouting obscenities and start listening.