Evalangui's (readingz) wrote,

"RANDISM: A Psychological Time Bomb" by Monty Heying . [N3]


I didn't mean to read this, much less review it but the sheer irony of someone writing propaganda without even ONE logical argument about a conspiracy theory by someone obsessed by logic and reason (Ayn Rand) just killed with the stupid. I was not impressed with "Atlas Shrugged", which I never finished but I liked the ideas in "The Fountainhead" (for reason is the awesomest), which is not to say I didn't find some of them highly objectionable or, to be more precise, I found some applications to be sloppy (ie women). Almost everybody who speaks about Rand seems to have completely missed what her books say. To suggest she was a plant and her ideas praising HyperCapitalism (one that is, by its extreme nature, also close to the other extreme that is Anarchism) are a way to destroy regular Capitalism is both ridiculous and true. Ridiculous to assume it is done in the name of Communism, which is as far from Rand's vision as one could possibly get (and quite probably what freaked her out so much in the first place that she developed such an unbending philosophy); but true because Rand does indeed approve of Capitalism as it was, cushioned by the principles of the common good and altruism, and desires instead a system that allows each individual to move freely and express themselves as independently as possible. She calls the individuals capable of this independence "creators" and their need, their egos, are more valuable to her than any good to the general mass of the species. She is not wrong regarding the way independent thinking has been denigrated, praised only when it confirms the status quo and how progress requires conflict, not loyalty. Of course, to use her own metaphor, to get the building finish, you do need a kind of dedication and loyalty, a belief in an architect's vision to be shared, albeit momentarily (and it can be done freely but it rarely is) by others putting into the world. It is not the unthinking loyalty of a slave, though, that achieves the greatest results, and anybody who's taken a job and been given orders without being explained their purpose knows how terrible it feels to be managed as if one is a machine, depriving one's actions of purpose and meaning. It's bad for you and it's bad for your work but it is expected and said to improve efficiency (because machines are more efficient than people, make less mistakes). Except machines (not more advanced computers), by virtue of being nonintelligent, do not improve nor problem solve, so while they keep things steady, they produce no growth. That was Rand's point, second handers will keep things going, but if you want progress, you need creators and creators do NOT do well constrained by societal expectations. Marx was saying pretty much the same thing when he talked of the worker's "alienation", the issue is not that they don't keep the cars, really, but that they don't get to infuse the cars with any part of their own personalities, they don't get to make a mark in the world but simply to be used as parts of someone else's body.
Tags: *author: male, ++profoundly pathetic people who maybe i, +psychology, +social issues, 2014, 2014: article, @read in english

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded