Wake Me Now

Like many others, I read Ayn Rand’s book “Atlas Shrugged” and felt, aside from the heavy dose of romance (not my preferred genre), that it was interesting and provided plenty of food for thought. As a 22-year-old at the time reading her book while residing in what I refer to as a “quasi-ghetto” urban neighborhood in a Midwestern metropolis, the concept of objectivism didn’t completely sit right with me. Despite the book’s popularity and my own Libertarian leanings which were already firmly planted by that age, her message along with the underlying moral lessons Mrs. Rand advocated perplexed me. The book was well-written and quite the page-turner due to its radical content, but ever since I had been unable to appreciably make heads or tails as to the legitimacy of her claims that industry is rightfully intertwined with human morality above and beyond all else. There was plenty to agree with, however, such as the “evil” characters ultimately failing as a result of corruption and greed which resonated with the idealistic elements of my own life philosophy. But something in her views just hasn’t sat right to this day…

So, this week I decided to look up interviews with Ayn Rand to listen to her message directly “from the horse’s mouth” in an effort to understand what exactly she was advocating and why her books have grown in popularity, particularly during the latter part of my lifetime.

Let’s take a look at an interview from 1959 hosted by Mike Wallace (parts 1 & 2):

We’ll pick it apart as we go.

To begin with, she defines “objectivism” as accepting that an objective reality exists outside of us as individuals and our own perceptions, a concept likely most of us agree with.

She said “a man’s highest moral purpose is the achievement of his own happiness.” She considers self-sacrifice and altruism “evil” (as she also explains during her interview with Phil Donahue – see below). She goes on to say that a man should not expect others to give up their lives to make him happy, which I do agree with, however, there appears to be a a disconnect somewhere. While I do agree that we should not attempt to force others to sacrifice on our behalf, that’s not to say we don’t still have an obligation to one another or that sacrifices are neither necessary nor honorable in order to maintain a sense of solidarity among people and across communities. Mike Wallace asks what’s wrong with the belief that we are all our brother’s keeper, and Mrs. Rand replies that this is what makes man a “sacrificial animal,” a role she openly detests. Her assertion that a man should not expect others to sacrifice themselves for his happiness makes sense and is proper because it points to a sense of entitlement, which I personally have qualms with, but does it follow that a man should not wish to sacrifice his own life for others? Why shouldn’t he? She says we should be driven by our sense of entitlement based on our own individual hard work and efforts. Hmmm…to an extent I do agree. We do deserve to enjoy the fruits of our labor without our pursuit of happiness being unjustly impeded on by others, BUT what does that have to do with wishing to sacrifice for the greater good of others? Perhaps what she actually means is that we should not be raised and encouraged to feel as though we must sacrifice for others and should only do so if it is something we personally value. But by the tone she sets here and in other interviews, Mrs. Rand looks down upon those wishing to, referring to their altruistic ambitions as “evil” and “weak.” That seems quite extreme, don’t you think? While we ought not expect others to do for us what we are capable of doing for ourselves, why would we so desire to demonize the people who do wish to help those obviously unable to help themselves? She doesn’t explain why these two separate and conflicting concepts (self-entitlement at the expense of others and honest altruism) are lumped into the same, generic category that she refers to simply as “altruism” and has assigned the label of “evil.”

What troubles me here is her attempt to essentially redefine altruism, likening it to sacrificing a friend for an enemy (stated plainly in her interview with Phil Donahue posted below). But that’s not altruism as we’ve commonly come to accept it. On one hand, Mrs. Rand rejects the notion of self-entitlement as it applies to others, but then on the other hand embraces the notion as it applies to us individually. In other words, it is “altruistic” -as she defines it- if we expect from or do for others, but we’re perfectly moral and right to do our own thing with a sense of entitlement – a concept that typically requires the sacrifice of others. Hmmm… I understand that she wishes to separate self-entitlement from the attached ramifications, but that’s ideology and not reality.

If all pursues their own happiness with no care or concern for the happiness of others, is that likely to heighten moral virtue within a society? History has shown us that it has not, at least not in terms of how we generally and commonly throughout the ages and across most (if not all) nations define morality. But Ayn Rand does not define morality as most people do, admitting openly that the moral virtues societies typically embrace run counter to her own understanding of morality. So, to simplify this argument, we must break it down in terms we can all understand instead of using shared terms to argue in favor of very different meanings. If her version of morality runs counter to the popular principles, it can be considered an “anti-morality” or perhaps more fairly an “opposing morality.” She openly speaks out against the common versions, principles and definitions that we (humans on earth) generally uphold, so to say we stand in opposition is based on her own declarations and condemnation for our collective and historically fundamental beliefs in right and wrong.

**Note: Unquestionably, I absolutely acknowledge that there is not one widely accepted definition of morality, nor has there ever been. However, there are a few core principles and values that humans across the globe and throughout history tend to appreciate, even if we differ over the specific details. One example is the virtual universal acceptance that it is immoral to willfully kill innocent people. Another is the reverence of honesty. Also, it is widely considered virtuous to act in accordance with what we believe to be right and to resist corruption. Even if these fundamentals aren’t practiced to the full extent that many of us wish for, they remain ideals for modern civilization to continue working toward making a reality.

Okay, with that out of the way, we can better see why she considers altruism “evil.” In her version of morality, man is bound to no one else but himself and his own “rational self interest.” But what is “rational self interest” and how does it typically play out in a society? She says there is no such thing as society and that it is simply a collection of individuals, but that undermines the very basic tenets of human existence on this planet. We are indeed a collection of individuals naturally driven by a desire to achieve for ourselves, but that doesn’t mean we aren’t too bound to one another as a collective seeking to live in peace with one another. The desire for peace and improved conditions for the vast majority of people within our own and across communities is a noble concept that perhaps presents us with the best way we as a civilization can go forward so that the people can continue to co-exist with one another. To remove all social and collective obligations (or to go further and outright condemn them) will result in widespread harmony? No, and I don’t believe she even thinks so. It will simply result in disparity between those deemed as “deserving” and others who are not. She says nothing on how this problem will be reconciled and in her book “Atlas Shrugged” envisioned the creation of a new village where the characters could practice this way of life unhindered by concerns for the outside world. On a global scale, how would this sort of ideology play out if only a minority are truly “deserving” and moral in accordance with her philosophy?

Sounds like where we’re headed already, doesn’t it?

She goes on to say that we should not love one another indiscriminately and instead should reserve our love for those possessing virtue and good moral character. But what is virtue and moral character in her opposing version of morality? She has described self-entitlement based on achievement as virtuous, but is that it? What makes a person virtuous in a world where it is widely upheld that individual self-interest should motivate us above and beyond all else? Mike Wallace points out that we humans experience weakness and fallibility due to our very nature, to which she replies that weak people certainly don’t deserve love. Hmmm… but by condemning love directed toward the weak amongst us, how are they to grow strong? I don’t believe she cares about that. And if love is reserved only for those deemed strong according to her opposing version of morality, one would think only a small minority capable of maintaining their strength (however the hell she defines that) would be deemed worthy of love. But who or what decides what constitutes weakness and strength? The market?

She agrees that according to her standards, very few of us are currently worthy of love, but that we each are capable of striving to become worthy, though the desire for love should not be the primary motivating factor. Huh. But that flies in the face of the human condition. We do all want and need love and are extremely driven to seek it out among others. That will not change. It could also be argued that by focusing an inordinate amount of attention on and defining our self-worth in terms of becoming more competitive and economically successful is what is tearing communities apart and breaking down the social fabric in U.S. society these days. While our productivity and efforts do make up a part of who we are as human beings, it is not all that we are as individuals. It seems we need more than that alone to feel satisfied with living on this planet. That’s reality, whether we care to acknowledge it or not, and any imbalances will result in social ills and problems. Look at us today even. Droves of people turning toward prescribed medications to manage the depression and anxiety they experience with more of us than ever before describing feeling of loneliness despite regular contact with other humans at work. Is that a coincidence? Have we not acted enough in our own self-interest to attain feelings of well-being and to earn the love of our peers? Will more selfishness improve our chances for love and creating a life we’re proud to have lived?

They move on to discuss politics where Mrs. Rand places much of the blame for our societal ills at the foot of the welfare state. I do agree that we ought not have created a welfare state. Instead, after the Great Depression it would have better served the people to place more limits on the Central Bank to ensure our economy wouldn’t be manipulated by the selfish interest of the bankers again in the future, though a temporary welfare system did appear necessary to improve conditions for the many lives and fortunes ruined as a result of the devalued currency and economic collapse. The bankers and those made wealthy via manipulating the banking industry should have been held responsible and liable to pay reparations to the people, reducing the role of government to overseeing this process judicially. So, yes, I do agree that turning ourselves into a welfare state certainly came with a host of problems unto itself, but it could have been avoided if those, many of whom were very powerful at the time and remain so to this day, had been held properly accountable. That’s according to the morality I subscribe to anyway.

She goes on to say that we are moving toward complete “collectivism” and “socialism.” Yes, social welfare is a step toward socialism, but as discussed in previous posts, socialism in itself may be a democratic and decent socioeconomic system. See: Canada in its heyday. And we were already a collective and will remain so regardless of whether we acknowledge this truth. Collectivism is little more than people working together in order to maintain civilization. Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines collectivism as:

1: a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution; also : a system marked by such control

2: emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity

As we’ve moved into this modern technological age, there has been a trend toward embracing the concept of individualism, the “every man for himself” line of thinking, and while it’s liberating to an extent, when pushed so far that it denies and ignores the collective society in which the individual exists and is enmeshed with, we are faced with a host of social (and economic) problems and disparities. Whatever happened to the idea of everything in moderation? Why instead of advocating against collectivism doesn’t a movement come about that seeks to strike a balance between the individual and the greater society? Discovering that balance seems imperative at this point in history if we (as an aggregate) wish to go forward psychologically healthy AND economically successful in a sustainable and fair manner AND socially responsible in our dealings with one another. This goal is an important part of my moral beliefs and life philosophy not simply because it focuses on the greater good of society but because there appears to be no other feasible way that we can all exist simultaneously on this planet and experience relative peace. At least not that we’re aware of at the present point in time.

As for Mrs. Rand speaking out against “everybody being enslaved to everybody,” I can’t help but ponder what are our alternatives? She would say that nobody is enslaved to anybody, but I then would say that perhaps by everybody being enslaved to everybody else (so to speak anyway), this is how we come to experience life where nobody is truly enslaved by anyone else. But if we follow her reasoning and her opposing position on morality, that small minority (the same deserving of love and money) would in fact be free to enslave the rest of us. And I would argue that they are already doing so and tightening our bonds a little more with each passing year. They accomplish this in the form of major corporations that they head, which are difficult for us to compete against due to their ability to offer lower prices. They offer lower prices because they are able to secure cheaper labor, in the form of sweatshops and exploitation of foreign workers where they get away with paying wages so low that it’s tough to argue that many employees aren’t effectively enslaved. Our small businesses are unable to compete and we fall to the mercy of corporations willing to hire us. They abuse this power by refusing to pay a living wage and increasingly cutting our benefits in an attempt to save money, reduce their overhead expenses and increase company profit margins, which in turn boosts the stock price. More and more money funnels upward where a select few benefit the most financially and the rest of us are left to accept our lot in life while popular media fills us to the brim with dreams of someday becoming CEOs ourselves. It creates a competitive environment for all workers who wish to improve their conditions, but much of the success and wealth is restricted to a small minority who exploit our interests and labor and offer mere token incentives relative to their own earnings to encourage our competition, and in turn, make them wealthier.

I’d rather be enslaved to all others than to a small minority with the power to make our lives hell as we fight over the crumbs that trickle down. In case we haven’t realized it yet, this small minority IS acting in its own self-interest and doesn’t give a fuck about us, the individuals who make their grossly disproportionate wealth possible. If we complain and demand wages a single-earner can live on, the corporations simply pack up and head to countries where the people are so desperate for earnings of any kind that they have no choice but to accept the work conditions and pay forced upon them. What is their alternative? What is our alternative? This is the moral way of life we ought to be celebrating?

I do agree with her assertion that it should come down to voluntary consent and voluntary cooperation among free men and women. That’s precisely the fundamental basis for my own morality where we work together to bring about a just and fair system, not only in terms of governance but also in commerce and social relations. Her comments are very contradictory throughout the interview and I have trouble grasping where the disconnect is in her mind. Yes, of course, we should be free to decide for ourselves and life in our society does require give and take. I would say we have a moral obligation to give back though she may disagree, placing more of an emphasis on a small minority being entitled to their take. That’s quite a biased view in my opinion and she seems ignorant of the fact that a successful minority tends to limit the options and ability to voluntarily consent for the masses beneath them. Her refusal to accept the reality of what generally occurs when a few achieve great wealth and power is frustratingly naive. Time and time again history has shown us that this small minority is rarely content to simply compete fairly for its wealth and is destined to take measures to protect it, usually by affecting law and order and by lobbying to pass legislation that secures their competitive edge, oftentimes at the expense of the people and society as a whole. Whether it’s a monarch or a group of industrialists, the end results are similar: tyranny marks its existence. Why? Because the small minority has the power and incentives to do so.

Hence the virtually universal moral admonishment for greed and selfishness. Whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Pagan, Hindu or even agnostic like myself, we tend to share this belief that excessive greed is destructive. BUT in acknowledging this, this doesn’t mean we wish to sacrifice our own free will or lose our sense of individuality. In some aspects we act as a collective and in others we act as individuals, but either way we attempt to remain bound to an understanding that if we wish to co-exist relatively peacefully we need to work together cooperatively. Unchecked power fueled by selfish greed does what to help us in this endeavor? By arguing against regulations and limitations set by governments and societies to check the power of these big businesses she claims to favor, she is in essence arguing for perpetuation of greed and selfishness run amok. I’m not sure if she realizes this, but it would seem impossible not to. Perhaps in her envisioned world we the people would check these organizations and corporations by voting with our dollars, but as we’ve seen historically and are experiencing in modern day society, those with power actively seek ways to limit our power to fight them.

In recent decades globalization has led to the rise of multinational corporations which are free to hop from country to country, escaping the demands of people in its place of origin and anywhere else along the way. We the people, as a collective, lose our bargaining power as a result. Certain individuals may be free to chase these multinational corporations around the globe, but the vast majority of us cannot and thereby lose out unless we bend to their demands and accept what provisions are offered. This is a very scary concept indeed and one actively being practiced at this time. The United States hasn’t felt the worst of it yet, I’d venture to say.

“Neither should have the right, neither employers nor the employees, to use state-compulsion and force for their own…” I agree, though it is idealistic and assumes our social and political systems and all others globally are in cooperation and capable of upholding this ideal. But we are not, at least not as of yet. We bend and sway due to competitive forces, individually, collectively, societally, nationally, regionally. Plus, we’re not operating on a level playing field where people everywhere possess comparable bargaining power and an educated understanding of what this entails and what our responsibilities are as consumers, workers and citizens.

To implement her form of morality in conjunction with an extremely limited government and the abolition of labor unions in one country is to have this corporate corruption spread to and affect/infect all other countries and markets, as we’re currently experiencing in the modern age. Not all peoples are prepared to handle this rapid shift toward globalization, giving these corporations leverage to decide the rules of engagement everywhere they go by exploiting the real fear that they may simply moving elsewhere if conditions aren’t as favorable as they’d like, rendering the people unemployed unless other options are available (and as we know, many times they are not). In a competitive global environment, some countries will be willing to bend to corporate demands in an effort to provide for its people or bring some measure of wealth to the region. There will be governments willing to negotiate with corporations, just as there are states in the U.S. willing to dole out corporate welfare dollars to entice businesses, even at the expense of its people, as we’re all aware of. How does Mrs. Rand’s philosophy cope with this reality?

Is it rational to allow all of this to transpire simply because ideally we feel that both employers and employees OUGHT to act on equal footing and that governments need to butt out of the negotiation process, even when we see that this is NOT how it actually plays out in the real world? This is the problem with basing economic and political policy on ideologies. Or even basing moral principles on ideology for that matter. If we know the reality to be very different from the ideal we profess, shouldn’t we focus our attention on understanding why reality is as it is and seek realistic, rational means for combating that which oppresses us rather than simply blame people and businesses for not behaving as we wish they would under whatever unreasonable doctrine we’ve decided to embrace? In other words, shouldn’t we work within the confines of what we know already to be true, taking into realistic account the limitations and fallibility of human nature? To simply wish it would be different than it is isn’t likely to get us very far, especially if we simultaneously radically alter the fundamental principles and morals we as humans virtually unanimously hold dear. It seems to me that rather than accept human nature and its slow and stubborn evolution, Ayn Rand seeks to redefine it and expects us all either to quickly get with the new program or die trying. In her thinking, this is just and harmonious.

Her ideology feeds into the greater neoconservative/neoliberal ideology we’re currently confronting. She would say we’re where we are because of too much government interference. I would argue that it was the wrong kind of government involvement that has allowed things to get out of hand in the first place, with much of it pandering to whims and desires of major corporations and the most wealthy individuals. I would also argue that because corporations basically act as “super humans” due to claiming personhood within our borders (and all the protections that go along with that), we the people need even more tools at our disposal to counteract this trend of governments and big business buddying up. AND I’d caution that this has become a global issue, not one limited to the U.S. or other developed nations, meaning that people everywhere will have to face these issues soon enough if they aren’t already. Our Constitution is weakened by a shift to globalization because we are unable to control what goes on outside of our borders, while corporations remain free to jump from country to country, free from any specific national limitations or restrictions or code of conduct. Their executives are fully aware of this and it’s high time we wake up to this reality.

Yes, Mrs. Rand, there is an objective reality that exists outside of us and our individual perceptions. It exists outside of our excessive greed and competition, outside of capitalist, socialist, and communist societies, outside of Big Business and governments throughout the globe. Even outside of our ideologies and wishful thinking. But what she is advocating isn’t pro-reality and it doesn’t take into account our collective perception of events. It sounds more like subjectivism to me, where the individual or entity focuses on its own self-interest and perspective, placing that above and beyond all else and all others.

Subjectivism according to Dictionary.com:

1. Epistemology. the doctrine that all knowledge is limited to experiences by the self, and that transcendent knowledge is impossible.

any of several theories holding that certain states of thought or feeling are the highest good.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary:

A theory or doctrine that emphasizes the subjective elements in experience.

Any of various theories holding that the only valid standard of judgment is that of the individual. For example, ethical subjectivism holds that individual conscience is the only appropriate standard for moral judgment.

The only thing objective about her philosophy as far as I can tell is that it at least acknowledges life outside of the individual does exist (though it places no real importance on this) and encourages rational, unemotional logic (which is indeed important, especially in the scientific realm). But that’s all. It is a misnomer to label this philosophy as true objectivism as it actually more closely fits the definition of subjectivism. Objective reality is about collectivism where as subjectivism is more about individualism and personal perception. She has skewed the language (perhaps unwittingly), calling something by a name other than is proper. Black is white. Up is down. It is said that “the goal of her fiction was to project her vision of an ideal man,” which is within her right to express, but not something I feel we ought to take too seriously as an alternative philosophy capable of being implemented in the real world, at least not if our goal is to improve conditions for mankind and reduce the gap between those with means and those without.

This is not a mindset I personally can get behind and I encourage others to question where a philosophy like this might lead us, in the context of reality as we know and experience it. To learn more, watch her 1970s interview with Phil Donahue:

Here are parts Two, Three, Four and Five. You too may find her intolerance and bitterness to be quite disturbing. None of this is what I expected from the author of a book that has remained in my own personal collection. While I continue to appreciate her contribution to literature, these interviews have confirmed for me the incompatibility of her reasoning.

And on a side-note, Ayn Rand’s arrogance as an atheist is every bit as troubling as the arrogance of religious folks. Neither is appropriate in my opinion, but then again I personally place importance on seeking the truth and encourage all of us to keep an open mind and find common ground with others. And as an agnostic, I have to say her repeated use of the word “evil” was pretty confusing. It’s a word I tend to avoid because I’m unclear on what actually constitutes “evil” (is it an external force or an aspect of human nature that has yet to be fully explored?) and who is entitled to define it. The religious-minded tend to monopolize on the concept of “evil” through their texts and define it according to religious doctrine, even when parts of that doctrine are arguably archaic, unfairly biased and ethnocentric. I am aware that cruelty and savageness do exist but try to understand their existence through a combination of sociological, psychological and biological perspectives and information. That does not deny the possible existence of a higher being or natural force, but this is what we’re capable of knowing during our lifetimes, so that’s where I start. So it surprised me that Mrs. Rand, a self-proclaimed atheist, spoke using such definitive and judgmental language commonly asserted by the most religious or spiritual amongst us. Moral judgment is highly subjective by its very nature, a fact she suspiciously seems ignorant of.

Lastly, arrogance and pride in the absence of humility is a core moral dilemma, in my thinking anyway. Again, it comes back to striking a sustainable balance in the world in which we all wish to live.

Here is a very interesting article about Ayn Rand in Reason Magazine from March 2005. Has her philosophy “petrified into dogma” yet? I’d say so. Randism offers just enough realism to be enticing but not enough to be practical.